PRIVATE BUSINESS

Selection

Ordered,
	That Mr Simon Burns be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Alistair Burt be added to the Committee.— [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Student Visas

Joan Humble: What account she takes of the contribution of foreign students to the UK economy in taking decisions on student visas.

Liam Byrne: Foreign students benefit our country to the tune of almost £8.5 billion a year. Students will be included in the new points system, which will make the system easier to police.

Joan Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Overseas students make a valuable contribution to this country's economy. Universities recognise both that and their role as sponsors under this new visa scheme, but they are still unclear about how it will be administered. Will he talk to education institutions about how the new certificates will be administered and, above all, how the new registration requirements will be monitored?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is right that big changes will be introduced in the granting of visas to students under the points system. In particular, a new register will come into place with much tougher obligations on colleges to report events such as non-attendance and extended periods of absence, but, more importantly, students will, for the first time, be tied to a specific institution—they will not be able to come in under the sponsorship of one organisation and switch in-country to another. As these are big changes, I plan to publish blueprints of how the new system will work as early as possible so that there is as much time as possible for us to discuss the details with universities. I will certainly make sure that I talk to universities in my hon. Friend's area as we try to get these proposals right.

Mark Pritchard: Foreign students undoubtedly make a valuable contribution to this country's economy, but with one in five students dropping out of full-time education, many of whom are foreign students, how confident is the Minister that universities are communicating foreign student drop-out rates to the Border and Immigration Agency?

Liam Byrne: We introduced changes in April last year, through a change to the immigration rules, that made it mandatory for education institutions to keep effective records on, for example, enrolment, and to report those records to the BIA when asked to do so. The new proposals under the points system take that tightening of the system a stage on, so that it becomes mandatory for universities and other higher education institutions to report not only students who do not turn up for their course, but extended periods of absence. We are giving universities time to prepare for these changes because we realise the new burdens that will be put on them, but I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that the system needs to be tighter in future.

David Davies: Is the Minister aware that a large number of language schools are completely bogus and are nothing more than a front to get people illegally into this country? What action is he taking against such bogus language schools?

Liam Byrne: We are determined to take colleges off the register of licence sponsors whenever we come across evidence of such abuse, and if the hon. Gentleman has information about colleges perpetrating such abuse I would, of course, be grateful to receive it. Well over 100 colleges have been taken off the register over the last year and a half, thanks to the work of the BIA.

Jim Sheridan: Foreign students make a valuable contribution to many of our disciplines, particularly in manufacturing industry. However, there is one discipline through which they make little contribution to the UK economy: journalism. Will my hon. Friend therefore make sure that foreign journalists who apply for visas come here on the basis that they deal with factual evidence and factual evidence only?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that observation. It is important for it to be much harder for organisations to get on to the appropriate register in years to come. Under the points system, it will be easier to police new regulations on how colleges get on to the register. I will, of course, look at any new ideas for such requirements that my hon. Friend might like to suggest.

Police Numbers

Mark Harper: What representations she has received on police force strength following the publication of the Flanagan review.

Jacqui Smith: The Flanagan report makes it clear that we must think seriously about how we can make best use of police resources to meet the demands that the service faces. The changes that Sir Ronnie recommends could release up to 7 million police hours—the equivalent of 3,500 extra officers. I welcome Sir Ronnie's contribution to the debate, and the strong case he makes for reform to improve the outcomes that we can all achieve for the public.

Mark Harper: The Home Secretary did not really answer my question, but she will know that I asked what representations she had received about the Flanagan report. May I commend to her an excellent article by Gloucestershire's chief constable in  The Citizen last week, in which he refers to Sir Ronnie's recommendation that damping be removed? If that were to happen, Gloucestershire would lose 100 police officers or have 6.5 per cent. added to its council tax. Will she rule out the removal of damping?

Jacqui Smith: It is because we ensured not only a 2.9 per cent. overall increase in revenue support for police forces, but a floor increase of at least 2.5 per cent. for all authorities that the hon. Gentleman's authority has been protected at that floor. We managed to find the balance between moving partially towards the formula for which many hon. Members on both sides of the House have called and protecting police forces such as his.

John Reid: May I express my gratitude to Sir Ronnie Flanagan for the expeditious and efficient way in which he conducted this review of policing? I know that the Secretary of State shares my view, which motivated the commissioning of this report, that we need to reduce bureaucracy and red tape. How quickly will she be able to act on his recommendations, particularly the important ones such as the streamlined reporting of crimes, which is being piloted by Staffordshire police?

Jacqui Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for his prescience in asking Sir Ronnie to undertake the review when he was Home Secretary. He is right to say that it contains many important recommendations, including the one to which he refers. That approach is being piloted in Staffordshire. It reduces the reporting down to one page of recording for the vast majority of crimes and enables more emphasis to be placed on caring for victims. I expect to be able to roll it out much more widely very quickly—in fact, before the end of this year.

Gregory Campbell: The Government have indicated that they want the devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland. Does the Home Secretary accept that many people across the divide in Northern Ireland would much prefer additional resources to provide more police officers on the ground to combat criminal activity before we go down the line of devolving policing and justice?

Jacqui Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, extra resources are being made available and ongoing discussions are taking place about the governance of policing in Northern Ireland. The point that Sir Ronnie makes has wide relevance. He says that the reforms that he has proposed, upon which we are acting and which I am sure will be relevant in Northern Ireland, will enable us to maximise police officer time spent on the front line and to use our resources as effectively as possible.

Keith Vaz: As the Home Secretary knows, the Select Committee on Home Affairs launched its new inquiry into policing in the 21st century this morning in Newark and tomorrow we will examine Sir Ronnie and his findings. Will she confirm that the police constable is central to the Government's strategy on policing, that all the other parts, such as police community support officers and new technology, are secondary to that visible commitment to policing and that there is no question of a reduction in police numbers as a result of this report?

Jacqui Smith: Nothing in this report implies a reduction in police numbers. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the office of constable lies at the heart of policing, which is why officer numbers have increased by 14,000 since 1997. That increase has occurred alongside increases in other police staff, who work alongside those officers to do the job that our communities expect of them and that they are delivering so successfully.

David Ruffley: The Flanagan report, which the Home Secretary welcomes, states that
	"maintaining police numbers at their current level is not sustainable over the course of the next three years."
	Will she unambiguously pledge to the public and the police that those numbers will not be cut?

Jacqui Smith: I believe that between 1993 and 1997 police officer numbers fell by 1,100. We are increasing the resources available to support revenue funding for policing by 2.9 per cent. both next year and the following year. We are providing the resources necessary for chief constables to make the required decisions about their force's staffing levels of police officers and others. It is difficult for Conservative Members to make a credible case for increased resources when they have not supported the increases in resources and they had such a pitiable record in government.

Alcohol Restriction Zones

David Kidney: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of alcohol restriction zones in reducing levels of alcohol-related crime.

Vernon Coaker: No assessment has been made nationally of the effectiveness of designated public places orders; however, I am aware that some local authorities—Southampton, for example—have made assessments of their DPPOs. The fact that more than 554 DPPOs are in existence suggests that they are effective in combating alcohol-related crime and disorder.

David Kidney: I thank the Minister for that answer. The Stafford town centre zone was so successful in cutting crimes of violence and public disorder that last year the police, the council and the public agreed to extend the zone, so does that not show how effective the measure can be in tackling alcohol-related crime? Does my hon. Friend agree that to tackle alcohol-related crime, we need more measures such as the zones and the more general application of laws that permit the police to seize alcohol in public places?

Vernon Coaker: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am pleased that he has referred to the success of designated public places orders, because there has been a massive increase in their number. Personally, I am surprised that there are not even more of them spread out across the country. My hon. Friend is also right to point out the need for further powers to be given to the police and for further campaigns. He will be aware that a number of such campaigns have been conducted recently, including confiscation of alcohol from schoolchildren during half-term. We hope to see many more such activities in due course.

Patrick Cormack: What are the Minister and the Home Secretary doing about the problem of cheap alcohol? Will they respond to the initiatives taken last week by Tesco and others?

Vernon Coaker: I have already discussed with Tesco the proposal it made and we shall consider how we take the matter forward. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a review of pricing and promotion is being undertaken by the Department of Health. The report is due in July; we look forward to it and will take appropriate action then.

Nia Griffith: We are all very aware of the growing number of under-age drinkers who drink excessively in our streets and parks. Will the Minister tell us how the new confiscation measures will work to ensure that young people do not simply reoffend and carry on with the same practices?

Vernon Coaker: To stop young people reoffending we must first stop them believing that they can drink in public and act in any way in public without consequences. My hon. Friend is right to point out that our confiscation campaigns are directly focused on young people, to say that it is not acceptable to drink in public and then to use that as an excuse to vandalise and commit other acts. The confiscation powers enable the police, where they believe there is a risk of disorder, to confiscate alcohol from young people and, alongside our campaigns to tackle under-age sales, we believe they will make a real difference to the problems that I know exist in many estates across the country.

James Brokenshire: This week, a Home Office report is expected to show that in the year after the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, crimes of serious violence committed in the early hours of the morning jumped by a quarter. In January 2005, the Government claimed that giving local councils the right to charge pubs, clubs and other alcohol retailers for the costs of policing was a priority, through the establishment of new alcohol disorder zones, yet three years on they are still not in place. Why not?

Vernon Coaker: We will bring forward measures to introduce alcohol disorder zones in the near future. The hon. Gentleman referred to the review of the Licensing Act; the interim report into the implications of the Act, which we published last July, showed that serious violent crime over a whole night had actually fallen by 5 per cent.

Wheel-Clamping

John Spellar: What progress has been made on regulating wheel clamping on private land.

Meg Hillier: The Security Industry Authority will undertake a feasibility study of various policy options for the regulation of vehicle immobilisation companies—commonly known as clampers—in the private sector, the results of which will be available in early 2009. Further details will be published in the SIA's business plan for 2008-09.

John Spellar: First, may I say that it is a pleasure to see you in your place, Mr. Speaker? May you long stay there, as a reminder that in this country the Speaker is chosen not by an attempted coup from the Press Gallery, but by the Members of the House of Commons.
	My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that since 1992 wheel-clamping has been banned in Scotland, yet in the midlands and the rest of England cowboy clampers still inflict outrageous penalties on motorists. Will she give civil servants clear instructions to put a stop to that outrage, not in 2009 but this year?

Meg Hillier: I thank my right hon. Friend and congratulate him on the tenacity and vigour with which he has pursued the issue for a number of years. Scotland has a different legal jurisdiction, under which theft is defined differently, which is why such activity is illegal there.
	Fees are supposed to be reasonable, and it is intended that anyone who is clamped can raise the matter, because the individual clamper will be registered and licensed by the Security Industry Authority. There is recourse while we take the time to ensure that we get a proper, proportionate response.

Maria Miller: In high-density, high-rise developments such as Winterthur way in my constituency, where residential parking was limited by design, the threat of wheel-clamping is part of everyday life. Will the Minister ensure that the review places enough emphasis on not just deterring unwanted parking but protecting residents to ensure that they are not penalised unnecessarily as part of the process?

Meg Hillier: The hon. Lady rightly mentions the balance that must be struck: people who are clamped are not happy about it, but there is a clear need to protect landowners and residents from illegal parking. I would welcome her comments and her input into the suggestion of options for the feasibility study. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), will take up the very points she raises.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: But are there not clear rules at the moment that forbid the absolutely outrageous behaviour of private companies that clamp people's cars and charge exorbitant rates? Is it not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to make that very plain to the public, who are getting fed up with such behaviour?

Meg Hillier: The law requires individual clampers to be licensed as members of the Security Industry Authority. They must charge a reasonable fee and have adequate signage in place. If any individual has any concerns, they have recourse to complain to the SIA. We hope that we will be able to tackle the concerns that hon. Members have raised in the ongoing study.

Andrew MacKay: Surely that is not the case. Under present legislation, there is no control over the fees charged to unclamp a car. Extortionate fees are being charged, and nothing can currently be done about it. When will the Government introduce fresh legislation to put that right?

Meg Hillier: I am in danger of repeating myself. We recognise the points that hon. Members raise, but fees currently have to be reasonable. However, there is clearly concern, which is why we are undertaking a feasibility study to ensure that we get a balance between fees charged and protection for landowners. That is what we are going to do, and we will unveil plans in 2009.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is not the way forward simply to restrict wheel-clamping to the police and to directly employed, accountable staff of local authorities?

Meg Hillier: My hon. Friend is welcome to put his views as part of the ongoing review, but there would be some issues of cost for landowners were they forced to use only a limited, narrow group of suppliers.

Cannabis

Graham Brady: What steps she is taking to reduce levels of cannabis use among children and young people.

Vernon Coaker: The Government are tackling cannabis use through a comprehensive package of measures as part of our national drug strategy, including prevention, education, early intervention, enforcement and treatment.
	The Government's message on cannabis use to young people is consistent and clear: cannabis is harmful and illegal, and should not be taken.

Graham Brady: The Minister will be aware that there is alarming evidence of links between cannabis use and mental health problems for young people, particularly schizophrenia and psychosis. The Government's "Talk to Frank" website states:
	"There's also increasing evidence of a link between cannabis and mental health problems such as schizophrenia. If you've a history of mental health problems, depression or are experiencing paranoia, then taking this drug is not a good idea."
	Does the Minister accept that that could mislead young people into believing that, if they have no history of mental health problems, it is safe to take cannabis? Will he ensure that the advice is strengthened to make it clear?

Vernon Coaker: I will look at it, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. He is right to point out that there is increasing concern throughout the House and the country about the link between stronger strains of cannabis and mental health. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced a review. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is looking into it and will make its recommendations in late April, which the Home Secretary will consider.

Lindsay Hoyle: My hon. Friend ought to be aware that reclassification is part of the issue. We ought to reclassify cannabis. Not only has it got stronger, but the results of long-term cannabis use have been shown. Let us not continue to talk; let us take action and reclassify it as soon as possible.

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend is right to express his views with such passion. We are all concerned about the increasing evidence of a link between cannabis and mental health issues. That is why we are statutorily required to consult the ACMD, which is what we are doing. We must wait for its advice, which we have asked it to give as quickly as possible. That advice will come at the end of April, and then my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider it.

Evan Harris: Does the Minister accept that there is no evidence that increasing the classification to class B would reduce cannabis use, just as there was no evidence that reducing it to class C increased its use? Is it not crazy for him and his colleagues to purport to have evidence-based policy making if they are willing to reject the advice of the ACMD when it reports?

Stephen Pound: It didn't do you any harm, then.

Vernon Coaker: That is a better answer than I could probably make! In all seriousness, the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) demonstrates the need for the Government to have a statutory committee to consider the issues. The point that he makes has been made in public for the first time to the ACMD. That is a change that we brought about—different opinions have been put to the ACMD by scientific advisers, health professionals and all sorts of people, including his point about cannabis and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). The advisory council will judge the issues, come to a view and make a recommendation to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and she will consider it. That will be evidence-based policy.

John Robertson: Early this month, Dr. King, an adviser to the Home Office, told the advisory council that the use of home-grown cannabis in the UK has risen from 15 per cent. to 70 per cent. The Government have put most of their attack into preventing cannabis from coming into the UK, but will my hon. Friend tell me what he is going to do about the home-grown stuff, the use of which has so greatly increased?

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Last year, the police undertook an enforcement campaign, Operation Keymer, which targeted so-called cannabis factories in residential areas. The drugs strategy that we are due to publish shortly will address that issue, saying that we need more of that type of enforcement activity. As well as issues about drugs and cannabis farms, we are concerned about the increasing evidence of a link between trafficked children and cannabis factories.

Inward Migration

Stewart Jackson: what recent estimate she has made of levels of net migration to the UK.

Liam Byrne: In 2006, the net inflow of migrants to the UK was 191,000. For those who take an interest in the issue, as I know the hon. Gentleman does, that is about 15 per cent. lower than the year before and about 22 per cent. lower than in 2004.

Stewart Jackson: My constituency has borne, and continues to bear, the brunt of the shambles that this Government call an immigration policy. Does the Minister think that my constituents will be reassured by a policy involving a belated points-based system but no upper limit on the number of people allowed to come to the United Kingdom?

Liam Byrne: I respect the passion with which the hon. Gentleman presents his argument, and I know that he recently held a debate in the House—I think it was last week—on the impact on public services that he sees locally. However, when I look at the proposals for caps on migration, I find it difficult to see how they would capture, touch or affect more than one in five of the newcomers who entered the UK in 2006. I believe that the points system will capture at least three in five, and I therefore think it is the right way forward for carefully controlling migration to the United Kingdom.

Gerald Kaufman: With regard to the administration of immigration law, will the Minister take whatever action is open to him to stop solicitors taking up asylum, leave to remain and nationality cases in which there is no need for legal representation—cases for which these greedy shysters grab money, and which they far too often bungle, so that they then have to come back to Members of Parliament? In addition to taking whatever action he can, will he ask the Law Society to investigate?

Liam Byrne: The position in my right hon. Friend's constituency sounds a little bit like that in mine, but he has a far more distinguished record than I have in helping constituents with errors made by immigration lawyers who claim to be acting in their clients' best interests. One of the biggest things that we can do to help resolve the problem this year is to make the law far simpler. That is why later this year we will introduce a Bill to simplify the immigration system and immigration law, some of which dates back pretty much to when I was born.

Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware of last week's OECD study, which showed that there are more British immigrants overseas than overseas immigrants in Britain? The implication of our experience of negative net immigration is that if immigrants returned to their country of origin, we would have more people here, not fewer.

Liam Byrne: I had not spotted the report to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, but he is absolutely right to say that sometimes when we hold debates about the number of people coming into the UK, we forget that, for example, in 2006, of the 529,000 people who came into the UK, 77,000 were British citizens.

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend is aware of the growing concern among some sectors of the work force, particularly in the building trade, about maintaining rates of pay because of the large influx of EU migrants coming to work in the UK. There are no simple solutions to the problem, but does my hon. Friend think that we should implement measures such as those in the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill, or allow multidisciplinary enforcement teams to go to workplaces such as building sites and make sure that people are properly qualified and are there legitimately? What can he do to implement such schemes?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing those issues with me, both in the Chamber and outside. I said last year that I think that in the next couple of years we need to double the Border and Immigration Agency's budget for enforcement, and we need to use a portion of those resources jointly with other parts of Government, so that where possible we come together with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and national minimum wage inspectorates to take a concerted approach to tackling abuse of workers from abroad, who are often vulnerable, and to stop the undercutting of British wages.

Damian Green: The Minister's latest attempt to affect levels of migration was last week's Green Paper. He will have noted that it united opinion across the spectrum—against it.  The Guardian said that Ministers should have
	"more...respect for the facts".
	 The Independent described it as
	"Clumsy steps in the wrong direction".
	 The Sun said that it was "a gimmick", and the  Daily Mail said that it was "simply barmy". I will spare the Minister the verdict of the  Daily Express. Ministers were clearly trying to talk tough. To that end, page 34 of the paper says:
	"Probationary citizens will not...be entitled to access mainstream benefits".
	Can the Minister name a single benefit that is available now that will not be available under the new regime?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to hear the spectrum of opinion that the hon. Gentleman mentioned; it might be a good sign that we have got things right. If he studies the issue in detail, he will soon realise that we propose a five-year cap on temporary leave. That will mean that quite a few benefits based on national insurance contributions, such as incapacity benefit, the state-based pension and those NI-based payments that require more than five years of contributions, will no longer be available to those coming into the country on temporary leave. The message that we want to send is simple: if someone wants access to mainstream benefits, they should have to earn their citizenship in Britain. People should not be allowed to sit on temporary leave for indefinite periods.

Gangs/Gun Crime

Stephen Pound: What plans she has to support police forces in tackling gangs and gun crime.

Jacqui Smith: I set up the Tackling Gangs action programme in September to undertake law enforcement and community engagement activity in areas of London, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool where guns and gangs are a particular concern. An action day in November resulted in 124 arrests and the seizure of 10 real and over 1,000 imitation firearms. Early indications from a survey of front-line staff show that they believe youths are less at risk now of involvement in gangs and gun crime than they were six months ago.

Stephen Pound: In thanking my right hon. Friend for her comprehensive answer, may I tell her that, particularly in my part of north-west London, the gang and gun culture is corrosive and massively dangerous and destructive, not just to the young children dragged into that murderous web but to the rest of us, who are literally caught in the crossfire? What lessons have been learned from the Tackling Guns action programme that can be applied to north-west London?

Jacqui Smith: In the areas on which we focused, we have learned important lessons about how to identify gang members at an early stage, and how to use all the resources in the hands of the police, particularly things such as covert surveillance, to do so. We have learned more about how we can mediate and put in place services that prevent the escalation of violence between gangs. We have learned about how we can prevent young people from being drawn into gangs in the first place, and how to ensure that there are exit strategies to get them out at the end. Alongside that, we have taken action to cut off and reduce the supply of guns into the country. All of those are aspects of success of the Tackling Gangs action programme, and they can all be shared more widely at the end of the programme.

Michael Fabricant: The Home Secretary said that 10 guns were confiscated. She will know that some estimates say that 70 guns a week on average are imported illegally into the United Kingdom, because of our porous borders. Years ago, the Home Affairs Committee recommended the introduction of an X-ray system at all ports of entry. Nothing has happened. When are we going to stop illegal importation of arms into the United Kingdom?

Jacqui Smith: First, we have made sure that the Serious Organised Crime Agency and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs increase the priority in resources focused on this issue. Secondly, specific operations have looked at some of the suggested routes in for illegal working and, thirdly, the new UK Border Agency can focus its combined resources on ensuring that we cut even further the import of illegal guns.

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Nicholas Winterton: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders.

Vernon Coaker: Three independent reports, including the Home Affairs Committee report of 2005, the Audit Commission report of May 2006 and the National Audit Office report of December 2006, have confirmed that our approach to tackling antisocial behaviour is working. We have also appointed Ipsos MORI to undertake a qualitative study investigating the circumstances in which different antisocial behaviour interventions are most effective. Antisocial behaviour orders are just one of these. The outcome is to be published some time in 2008.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister not accept that antisocial behaviour orders, sadly, have not been the success that many Members of Parliament would wish them to be?

Stephen Pound: Yes they have.

Nicholas Winterton: Oh no they have not. The National Audit Office, which the Minister cited, indicated a breach rate of 55 per cent., and the rate in Durham is as high as 74 per cent. When are we going to try to tackle the situation before young people start to become antisocial? Can we not give greater encouragement to the sea cadets, the Army cadets, the air cadets, the scouts, the guides and other uniformed organisations, to give young people a purpose in life at an early stage?

Vernon Coaker: I am tempted to say that the National Audit Office said, "Oh yes they are". In my constituency and in constituencies throughout the country, people want more, not fewer, antisocial behaviour orders because they see their effectiveness in dealing with antisocial behaviour. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point when he asks whether we have to rely solely on antisocial behaviour orders. Of course we do not. Those are a consequence for people who act in an antisocial way, but it is an important part of policy to try and prevent that in the first place, including through parents, families and the uniformed organisations of the sort that he mentioned.

Adrian Bailey: I welcome the approach taken by the Minister, and emphasise that the experience in my constituency and in the black country is rather different from that outlined by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). The opinion locally is that if we are to combat crime, there must be a high level of community involvement. Antisocial behaviour orders not only provide a fast-track method of dealing with individuals, but give reassurance and incentives to local communities to get involved in anti-crime initiatives. Will my hon. Friend ensure that that element is reinforced at local level in community policing?

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend makes a thoughtful contribution. As he says, antisocial behaviour orders are one part of the answer when dealing with antisocial behaviour, but alongside that there need to be other initiatives not just by the police, but by the local authority, schools and all the other agencies working together to tackle problems. As part of that, it is important to involve young people, as my hon. Friend said. When we talk about antisocial behaviour, it is incumbent on us to remember that the vast majority of young people in this country are decent, hard-working and growing up in difficult times. They want something done about the small minority who are a problem as much as the rest of us do.

Philip Hollobone: The ASBO unit at north Northamptonshire police is overwhelmed with work because it is far from straightforward to persuade magistrates to issue an antisocial behaviour order. It is meant to be a weapon of last resort. What speedy and effective penalties are in place to ensure that parents are held responsible for their children's behaviour?

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the fact that, as I said, antisocial behaviour orders are one part of the solution, but he is right to point out that alongside that we hear the cry, "What are parents, schools and families doing?" Other measures are available, such as acceptable behaviour contracts. Parental contracts are also available to the courts to ensure that the minority of parents who refuse to take responsibility for their children are encouraged to do so. Where parents refuse to do so, surely being encouraged to do the right thing and look after their own children is part of the solution as well.

Helen Jones: What steps can my hon. Friend take to encourage local authorities that have consistently failed to use antisocial behaviour orders against antisocial tenants to do so, instead of leaving people at the mercy of awful tenants next door to them? Can we stop local authorities constantly offering mediation, which puts the victim on the same level as the perpetrator, and encourage them to tackle those who make decent people's lives a misery?

Vernon Coaker: I know that my hon. Friend has been working hard in her local area, and that awful and tragic events have recently taken place there. She is right to point out that we need to ensure that existing laws are enforced and acted on. That is why we recently published a document to send out to local authorities and to the police reminding them of the powers that are available. May I add a point that I made to my hon. Friend—whether it is antisocial behaviour, kids on the street or antisocial tenants as she described, it is important that they do not merely receive warning after warning, and that sooner or later there is a consequence for their action. If that means tough action with respect to antisocial tenants, that is what should be used.

Terrorism Legislation

Ben Wallace: What plans she has to review legislation concerning the offence of possessing articles for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.

Tony McNulty: All counter-terrorism legislation, including the offence of possession for terrorist purposes under section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000, is subject to regular review. In the light of the Court of Appeal judgment on 13 February in the case of Zafar and others, we have considered whether any change to the legislation is needed. We have concluded that no change is required.

Ben Wallace: In the light of that court case and the ever-growing number of young men from Lancashire being radicalised into extreme forms of Islam, does the Minister recognise that the 2000 Act has not stemmed the flow of such material? Will he consider introducing an offence of possessing propaganda for the purpose of recruitment or radicalisation, to go further than the current Act?

Tony McNulty: Those points are perfectly reasonable, but as I have said, we have reviewed the 2000 Act, not least in the light of what is available in the Terrorism Act 2006. We think that most of the areas are covered at the moment. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Director of Public Prosecutions has said that the specific judgment on section 57 was
	"specific to the facts of the case"
	and was therefore unlikely significantly to affect existing convictions or forthcoming prosecutions. He subsequently wrote a letter to  The Times, published on Saturday 16 February, in which he stated:
	"We do not expect any significant read across, either to existing convictions or to forthcoming trials, which do not share the specific facts of this case. Far from 'terror law' being 'in tatters',"—
	as some would have it—
	"the Terrorism Act 2006 appears to deal with any perceived difficulty on these facts."

Topical Questions

Alistair Carmichael: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Jacqui Smith: Effective and visible neighbourhood policing for local communities is a key element in the fight against crime. From April, neighbourhood policing teams will be working in every area of England and Wales and I want everyone to have the opportunity to shape their team's priorities for fighting crime in their area.
	Today I am announcing, with the police, the launch of the Name in Every Neighbourhood campaign. Over the next few weeks, every household will hear from, be able to contact and be able to influence their local team. A new national neighbourhood policing website will let the public find the names and numbers of their local team, and the use of contracts between the police and the public will help to deliver this important change. I congratulate police forces across the country on helping to make neighbourhood policing a reality.

Alistair Carmichael: There is growing concern in Scotland about the operation of the Counter-Terrorism Bill—in particular, clause 27, which would allow offences committed in Scotland to be tried in England, and, theoretically, vice versa. Does the Secretary of State understand that that is fraught with difficulty? Will she assure me that if the provision goes on to the statute book, it will operate only after the agreement with the Lord Advocate of very clear guidelines for its operation?

Jacqui Smith: If there are linked attacks in, for example, London and Scotland, it is important that it should be possible, through the proposals that we are putting forward in clause 27, for both those linked cases to be prosecuted in one place. That is what the universal jurisdiction that we are proposing would enable us to do. When countering terrorism, it makes sense for us to be able to prosecute in the place where the investigation takes place, wherever that is.

Joan Walley: Today, the Addaction report has said that the cost of illegal drug use has been £110 million in the past 10 years and that just 10 per cent. of total spending is going on drug treatment. This week, the Government are set to unveil their strategy on drug treatment. Will my right hon. Friend consider how we can work with the police and the north Staffordshire safer communities partnership? Furthermore, will she meet Professor Crome of the Edward Myers centre, to see how we can make sure that successful police operations, such as the Nemesis operation, get more and more people into drug treatment?

Vernon Coaker: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Operation Nemesis in Stoke was fantastically successful and led, I believe, to a 20 per cent. reduction in crime. If we are to bear down on and reduce crime, getting drug-misusing offenders into treatment is absolutely essential. The drugs intervention programme that we have introduced is one part of that, and my hon. Friend will be aware how that operates. I understand that there are one or two difficulties in her local area with commissioning of services. Perhaps the best way of taking that problem forward is for us to discuss it, and I will be happy to do that if she wishes.

Christopher Huhne: The announcement made today by the Home Secretary, and earlier outside this House by the Prime Minister, of a new emphasis on neighbourhood policing is very welcome. However, what assurances can the Home Secretary give that the phone service will not be hit by 101-style budget restraints, that local residents will have access to ward-level crime and conviction data enabling them to be knowledgeable in holding local teams to account, and that more police, not fewer, will be available for a visible presence on the beat?

Jacqui Smith: First, on local crime information, we have committed to ensuring that by July this year crime information is available for local people on the basis of their areas. Secondly, we have been clear, not only with the additional numbers of police officers but with the police community support officers who are playing such an important role in neighbourhood policing, that those teams need to be visible and accessible. The success that we have already seen in some areas of this country in rolling out neighbourhood policing shows us the potential that there will be when it is everywhere from April.

Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend is well aware that the Government are committed to police community support officers. Does she share my concerns that there are seven absent or vacant posts for PCSOs in Chorley, leaving the Clayton area very vulnerable to crime, as that is the worst community support officer reduction that has taken place so far? Will she speak to the chief constable to seek to ensure that those vacancies do not remain open?

Jacqui Smith: It is of course the responsibility of chief constables to ensure that they are making the best use of the resources that they have in relation to police officers and to police community support officers, but given that eight years ago there were no police community support officers and now there are 16,000, I hope that those vacancies will not remain empty for long.

Michael Howard: Later this week, the European Court of Human Rights is expected to rule on whose DNA is to be permitted to remain on the United Kingdom's database. Does the Home Secretary agree that decisions of this kind should be made not by unelected foreign judges, however distinguished, but by elected Members of this Parliament? Regardless of the merits of the argument on that particular question, what representations is she making to the court to increase what it calls its margin of appreciation so that fewer decisions of this kind are made in Strasbourg and more in this House?

Meg Hillier: The DNA database has been a fantastic crime-solving tool and is something that we fully support. It would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on the Government's defence in the case of S and Marper, which is going to court on Wednesday. We will await the outcome of that and take action as necessary, but our position is very firmly that the DNA database is valuable and we want to retain it.

Ashok Kumar: May I tell the Home Secretary that there is great concern in Cleveland about how the funding for Cleveland police is allocated? Only recently, Cleveland's chief constable, Sean Price, said:
	"There is a basic flaw in the way we are treated in terms of funding allocation. Cleveland is grouped with metropolitan forces when performance is measured yet we are"
	also
	"classed as a shire force".
	Will the Home Secretary look at how the funding is allocated so that we get fair funding?

Tony McNulty: I met very recently the chief constable, Sean Price, and the chair of the police authority, David McLuckie, to talk about this and a range of other matters. I have to say two things. First, Durham is not unique in having an urban core and a rural surround and the challenge of both those aspects of policing. Secondly, colleagues on both sides of the House are rather impatient that we get to the formula agreed upon three years ago rather than reopening a new one. However, I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues from Cleveland if they want to discuss further, outwith the current budget round, the specifics of the formula and how it relates to Cleveland.

Anne Snelgrove: I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on neighbourhood policing, and in particular, the creation of the new website. Would she confirm that my constituents will be able to access details about their neighbourhood policing teams at the click of a button? Will she join me in congratulating the Wiltshire constabulary on creating 23 neighbourhood policing teams, covering the whole of my constituency, and indeed the whole of Swindon?

Jacqui Smith: Yes, I can confirm that from next month, the website will ensure that people can know the names and telephone numbers of teams who will be working day in, day out with them in their neighbourhoods. Wiltshire constabulary deserves congratulations for the way in which it has responded to the challenge of ensuring that we have visible, responsive policing in every neighbourhood in this country.

David Davis: In the last two years, the number of killings with a knife has jumped by 18 per cent. Can the Home Secretary tell the House why, in 2005, she voted against increasing the maximum sentence for knife possession to five years?

Jacqui Smith: We, of course, have implemented an increase in the maximum knife sentence from two years to four years. Alongside that, as I announced last week, we are undertaking a range of actions to ensure that we are able to cut knife crime, particularly among young people where—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this—it is a particular concern.

David Davis: The right hon. Lady says that she has implemented the law, but of the more than 6,000 convicted of carrying a blade in a public place in 2006, just two got the maximum sentence. Does she accept that a one in 3,000 chance of punishment deters no one?

Jacqui Smith: Serious punishment is obviously an important part of countering knife crime, which is why we will change the situation so that there will be a presumption of prosecution for those who are caught carrying knives. Secondly, we will make it more likely that those carrying a knife are caught, by investing in the opportunity for police to use search wands and portable arches. Alongside that, through the extra investment into the roll-out of programmes such as the Be Safe project, which takes place in schools and teaches young people about the implication of carrying knives, we will try to prevent young people from even thinking about carrying knives on the street in the first place.

John Robertson: Security at our airports is important to us all, particularly those of us who fly to be here. Once again, today, a bunch of lunatics managed to get on to a plane and off it, and then climbed up on top of it to drape a sign from its tail. That could have been someone with explosives. The shuttle from Glasgow had just arrived, and I walked by the plane at the time. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that there will be an investigation into today's debacle at Heathrow airport?

Jacqui Smith: Yes. This is a country in which we believe in the right to protest, but protesting in a way that could put in danger, and certainly inconveniences, those travelling on our airlines is clearly irresponsible.

Peter Bone: Both the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary, in response to recent oral questions from myself, have refused to say how many MPs have been bugged. Will the Home Secretary say how many MPs have had their conversations intercepted over the last 10 years? If she fails to do so, will there not be an assumption that there is a Government cover-up?

Jacqui Smith: No I will not, and there is not.

Tim Loughton: My constituency has again been blighted by the establishment of a so-called cannabis café, to the great annoyance of local residents. It acts as a magnet for all sorts of low life coming into Lancing. Despite the best endeavours of the police, who have raided the place five times, no prosecution has been brought to close it down. It is heavily fortified, well beyond what is required for a legitimate café, and a constantly fired furnace is used to burn the evidence the minute any police come in. I have written to the Home Secretary, but can she offer any help so that places such as this, which are clearly trading illegally and are fortified well beyond their needs, can be closed down, as local residents want?

Vernon Coaker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak to me straight after questions, I shall meet him to discuss that quite deplorable situation. I have not heard of anything quite as bad as that with respect to cannabis cafés. We need to ensure that we nip the situation in the bud, so that people see the serious consequences of such practice, and so that it does not spread anywhere else in the country. I will be pleased to hear the details because I have not heard of anything like that anywhere else in the country.

David Taylor: In our country there are organisations that promote bad behaviour and drug abuse, such as the Bullingdon dining club at Oxford, which is famous for hard drinking, bad behaviour and drug abuse and is also responsible for the decline and fall of many of its members. Will the Home Secretary say whether there is any indication over a 20-year period that the use of cannabis in clubs like the Bullingdon dining club is any higher or lower or about the same as it was when the Leader of the Opposition was an active member of that club in 1988?

Jacqui Smith: What I can say to my hon. Friend is that cannabis use—indeed, all drug use—is lower now than it was in 1997. Cannabis use is lower among young people. I agree with him that we need to find positive role models for young people to encourage them to live their lives as we would hope that they would.

Bob Spink: A young boy in my constituency who spat at his sister recently spent the night in the Essex police cells and may end up with a record. This unpleasant but not extraordinary incident consumed a massive amount of police time and resource. When can we get back to dealing with those things through parents, families and common sense, thus saving police time?

Jacqui Smith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is always difficult in this place to comment on the details of individual cases. It is precisely in order to ensure that police forces across the country can concentrate on the things that matter to local people that we will ensure first that there is a neighbourhood policing team in every area from April and secondly, as part of the new public service agreements that we will introduce from April, that there will be more flexibility for local forces to concentrate on local priorities.

Anne McIntosh: The Home Secretary said in response to an earlier question that she wants to roll out neighbourhood watch schemes in every neighbourhood. That will not happen if North Yorkshire gets a similar police funding settlement to the constituency of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland (Dr. Kumar). Will she please review the police funding for the forthcoming financial year and introduce rurality and sparsity factors to the way in which the funding is allocated?

Tony McNulty: As I suggested in an earlier answer, we are still seeking to implement the formula agreed some two or three years ago. The hon. Lady may want to get together with other MPs and look specifically at the rural dimension and at restoring the rural policing element of the old formula, which will clearly be at the cost of something else—I am sure that her urban colleagues would have something to say about that. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady and a cross-party group of MPs to discuss the matter further. If we do not have the formula right as regards the rural dimension and rural policing resources, I am happy to talk about it.

Points of Order

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were good enough to inform Members that a review of Members' allowances was to take place. As I understand it, you informed us that there should be a debate in July in connection with the Baker review on salaries and that the report on expenses and allowances should be ready for the autumn. As I say, we appreciate your keeping us informed. May I put it to you, Sir, in view of the public concern over the whole issue and the rather misleading impression that we are all on the make at public expense that, if it is in any way possible, the review should have greater urgency and should not wait until the autumn? I put it to you, too, that the matter is causing damage to the reputation of the House. The sooner we can resolve it, the better.

Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that the House unanimously—including him—agreed to put the matter to the Members Estimate Committee, which I chair. The House has charged me with a responsibility and I will carry out that duty until the House decides otherwise. That is a good thing for the reputation of the House.

David Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the comments of the chief inspector of prisons at the weekend about the crisis into which the system has been plunged, could you tell me how I, in my relative naivety, can persuade the Government that the matter calls for an urgent statement, especially given that the Secretary of State for Justice is telling magistrates not to put people in prison?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should table questions on those issues. If he wishes, he could apply for an Adjournment debate. Those are ways in which he can help matters.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (LISBON TREATY) (NO. 5)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 January],
	That the Order of 28th January be further amended as follows: in the Table, in the entry for Allotted Day 6, in the third column:
	(a) for '4&frac12; hours' substitute '4 hours', and
	(b) for '1&frac12; hours' substitute '2 hours'.  —[ Mr. Alan Campbell. ]
	 Question agreed to.

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 6)
	 — 
	[6th Allotted Day]

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

Douglas Alexander: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning international development.
	The challenge of eliminating global poverty is one of the greatest that faces our generation. Succeeding will require the concerted efforts of Governments in the developed and developing world, the private sector, civil society, individual citizens and the European Union.
	The Lisbon treaty gives the European Union an opportunity to move on from years of debating the reform of its institutions to looking out on to the world and dealing with the issues that matter to the people of Europe. Not only in this Chamber is tackling global poverty much debated. In 2005, nearly 250,000 people took to the streets of Edinburgh to call on world leaders to help make poverty history. On one October day last year, more than 1 million Europeans stood up and spoke out against global poverty.
	The Lisbon treaty will strengthen the European Union's development assistance by ensuring that development aid is used to reduce poverty, humanitarian aid is allocated on the basis of need and non-aid policies take account of development objectives.

Shailesh Vara: The Secretary of State speaks of giving aid to less developed countries. Given that the European Union has not been able to sign off its accounts for many years, what confidence can the public have that the European Union can monitor the funds given to other countries to ensure that they go to the people who genuinely need them rather than into dictators' pockets?

Douglas Alexander: I cite the example of the European development fund, the accounts of which have been signed off for several years. There was a qualified positive statement in 2006, but the qualifications were linked to the need to strengthen control in delegations. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the EDF is an example that I hope other elements of the European Union budget will follow.

Peter Bone: rose—

Gwyneth Dunwoody: rose—

Douglas Alexander: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am sure that we are all glad that any account can be signed off in the European institutions. However, other European Union trade policies specifically prohibit the sort of development that makes the difference between poverty and wealth in underdeveloped countries. Is my right hon. Friend happy for us to hand over so many international development powers to those whose interpretation of representation is frequently a large house in a small country?

Douglas Alexander: I know of my hon. Friend's long interest in European matters, but I fear that she labours under a misapprehension in suggesting that significant development policy powers are being handed over as a consequence of the Lisbon treaty. It has been established for many years that the European Union and, in the case that we are considering, the United Kingdom Government have a role to play in development assistance. Rather than perceiving EU development policies as a barrier to achieving the UK's objectives in development, we should view them as a mechanism whereby our objectives can be advanced.

Peter Bone: rose—

Mark Pritchard: rose—

Bob Spink: rose—

Douglas Alexander: I am spoilt for choice. I am happy to give way to the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard).

Mark Pritchard: On the European development fund, does the Secretary of State agree that the delays between decision and distribution are unacceptable and have a front-line impact on the people who suffer most? Is not it time to bring more of the money from Europe back to the Department so that we can get funding to people on the ground far quicker?

Douglas Alexander: The first person whom the hon. Gentleman would need to convince of that policy is the leader of his own party, who has argued that global poverty is one of the three key challenges that the European Union should accept. Rather than disputing the Government's position on the Floor of the House, the hon. Gentleman might want to discuss the matter in the first instance in the corridors of the Conservative party.

Peter Bone: rose—

Bob Spink: rose—

Douglas Alexander: I give way to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink).

Bob Spink: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree about the importance of trade policy in international development. Does he therefore regret that the Lisbon treaty, rather than reforming trade policy, reinforces the fact that trade policy is set in the secret and entirely unaccountable article 133 committee?

Douglas Alexander: If I recollect, the 133 committee has existed since the treaty of Rome. It is not a decision-making body; it is a discussion body. As a former Minister with responsibility for trade, I know that matters come to Trade Ministers or other Ministers in the Council of Ministers for decision. I would respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that given the weight in international affairs of countries such as China—we had the UK-China summit in recent weeks—it is hard to advocate the case for our being more effective in securing our trade objectives as a country of 60 million if we withdrew from a European Union of 27 member states. If, for example, he is honestly suggesting that we would be more effective in advancing the case of the Doha development round, which I know many Conservative Members support, if we spoke as a single country of 60 million, rather than as part of a European Union of 27 member states, perhaps the best place to start would be with those on his own Front Bench.

Denis MacShane: rose—

Peter Bone: rose—

Douglas Alexander: I give way to my right hon. Friend.

Denis MacShane: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being so generous in giving way. Last week we heard the case for isolationism; now we are hearing the case for protectionism. I hope that he will be robust in telling the Tories that we are no longer in the 18th century.

Douglas Alexander: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend is being fair—perhaps we should say the 19th century, because I am told that there are some modernisers on the Conservative Front Bench these days, although the case is as yet unproven.
	However, my right hon. Friend's point is well taken, and it is this. One reason we are so keen, working with the European Commission, to support the Doha development round is that if it were true to the promises made back in 2001, its conclusion would not simply serve the interests of the developing world, but be one in the eye for the protectionists and the isolationists. There are too many isolationists, both in Europe and on the Front and Back Benches in other parts of the House. Many of us recognise that in a world of such interdependence, it is through the collective strength of the European Union that we can tackle many of the biggest changes. Ironically, that is what the Leader of the Opposition now asserts, when he says that the European Union should be allowed to take a lead on climate change or global poverty. However, as we have heard in only the first few minutes of this debate, he has got some convincing to do of his own Back Benchers.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The European Scrutiny Committee received a report on EU development last year, in which one of the Secretary of State's predecessors commented that
	"one cannot easily determine what goals have been set and what progress has been made in achieving these".
	Does the Secretary of State not think that it might have been better had the treaty concentrated on reforming the acknowledged deficiencies in the existing programme, rather than giving more powers and money to the European development programme?

Douglas Alexander: Whether it has been the work of Neil Kinnock or Chris Patten, there have been significant reforms in recent years. The treaty of course sets the legal framework, but there is a range of administrative structures that sit below the legal framework which are matters of ongoing consideration and deliberation. I began my remarks by reflecting back to 2005. Most of us who felt pride in seeing the G8 commit to its goals then, not least the significant uplift in aid to Africa, recognised that the European Union set the pace. If one considers that or the consensus on development—again, achieved during the British presidency—it is fair to say that real progress has been made.

Peter Bone: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Douglas Alexander: I have been generous to the House and I should make a little progress.

Peter Bone: Oh!

Denis MacShane: He's walking out!

Douglas Alexander: I fear that I will not be able to convince those on my own side as effectively in the time remaining, but I have their best interests at heart.
	Strengthening the development efforts of the European Union is a matter of direct concern to many of the world's poorest people. Collectively, Europe is the world's largest aid donor. In 2006, members of the European Union together provided £32 billion of aid, which accounted for more than half of total global development assistance. As the world's largest single market, Europe is the most significant trading partner for developing countries and provides leadership on issues of great importance to them, including climate change, on which Europe lobbied in support of developing countries at the Bali conference and on which it set unilateral targets for greenhouse gases and established the world's first international carbon trading system.
	The Lisbon treaty provides the next step in the evolution of the European Union's efforts to reduce poverty. During the cold war, the European Commission, along with other donor countries, too often provided politically motivated aid. However, in the late 1990s and the early years of this decade, important reforms were made to both EC and UK aid. Here, this Government established the Department for International Development in 1997, untied aid in 2001, and introduced the International Development Act in 2002, establishing poverty eradication at the heart of the UK's aid efforts.

Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State is pushing at an open door when it comes to convincing many of us that co-operating with the European Union on this matter is a sensible approach. Will he, however, address the points on which there was serious disagreement between the Government and the EU during the negotiations on the treaty? For example, many of us would see the establishment of DFID as one of the achievements of this Government but, with the treaty, international development will be subsumed under, and answerable to, the external action policy. In other words, foreign policy will come first, and international development will come second. References to the most disadvantaged—that is, the pro-poor policy—will be removed by the treaty, and many of us are worried that this will result in a foreign policy that is much more geared towards middle-income countries, in contrast to the pro-poor policy that has been commendably pursued by DFID since the Doha round and the establishment of the millennium development goals.

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious and constructive point. I am grateful to him for acknowledging the success of the Department for International Development in recent years. He is right to recognise that the principles of the Union's external action are set out in article 24 of the Lisbon treaty, which, for the sake of clarity, I will read to the House. It refers to
	"democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law."
	In the light of that definitive list of principles informing the external action of the Union, I would ask the hon. Gentleman, with the greatest of respect, to suggest which of them would contradict the best development policy as developed by the Department for International Development in recent years. Given the specificity of poverty reduction being identified for the first time, I would suggest that those principles provide a strong foundation for one of the key areas on which I hope there is common ground across the House.

Tony Baldry: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me the opportunity to intervene again. One could have made exactly that point when the Overseas Development Administration was part of the Foreign Office. Those of us who were junior Ministers in the Foreign Office at the time will remember that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs controlled the international development budget. Those budget and policy arrangements were very different from the kind of creative tension that now exists in the Cabinet between the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Under the Lisbon treaty, international development will be put under foreign affairs, and my concern—and that of many non-governmental organisations—is that that will skew the way in which international development is seen in the European Union, particularly in regard to supporting middle-income countries in northern Africa and elsewhere.

Douglas Alexander: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I am not convinced by his case. Again, let me read directly from the treaty, this time from article 161. It states:
	"Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries."
	I would argue that the explicit reference to the eradication of poverty—in the immediate term, the primary objective of the reduction of poverty, and in the longer term, its eradication—itself provides the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman is seeking, in terms of having confidence as to the basis on which aid is going to be spent.

James Duddridge: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Douglas Alexander: I will make a little more progress, then I will happily give way.
	As I have said, important reforms of the European Union were made in the late 1990s and the early years of this decade. Brussels, the Kinnock reforms of the European Commission, and Chris Patten's work on reforming the European Council's external assistance have helped to make aid better targeted and more effective than it was in the past. Indeed, the improvements in EC aid have been recognised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's development assistance committee and by the House of Lords European Union Committee. In a 2004 report, the latter noted that the European Commission had made significant improvements in aid management and organisational effectiveness, and, as I have said, in 2005 the United Kingdom, as holder of the European Union presidency, was instrumental in designing the European consensus on development. The consensus defined a common European approach to development based on the pursuit of the millennium development goals, and clarified how the Commission works within that common approach.
	Some Members may believe that the UK's contribution to aid through the EC would be better spent through our own bilateral channels—indeed, that has already been said today—but I believe that such a retreat from our European aid commitments would act against the best interests of the world's poorest people. By providing a proportion of our aid through the European Commission, we encourage other member states to raise the level of their commitment. The focus on development and Africa during the UK's presidency of the G8 in 2005 unquestionably galvanised European support for the breakthrough commitments by the 15 richest member states to spend 0.7 per cent. of national income on development by 2015. I simply do not believe that that commitment would have been achieved had this not been an issue on which we work together in Europe.

James Duddridge: One of the Department's successes has been in focusing on lower-income countries, on which 81 per cent. of its money is now being spent, while the comparable figure in Europe is 32 per cent. Does the Secretary of State fear that some of the Department's excellent focus will be diluted by the treaty?

Douglas Alexander: I do not recognise the percentage given by the hon. Gentleman. Certainly European support continues to be provided in the European neighbourhood, not least as a result of the changes that have taken place since the accession of the A10, but I understand that in the European development fund, which has already been mentioned, the figure is closer to 90 per cent. I do not think that any embarrassment should be felt about the fact that the European Union, whether it is working in the Balkans or in north Africa, has a considerable interest in ensuring that there is greater stability and prosperity on the EU borders. That in itself has merit and is important work.

Hugh Bayley: Given that the European Union is such a large donor, disbursing about $10 billion of aid in 2006, does it not make more sense to get the EU aid policies right by staying in there? Does the treaty not help us by focusing on poverty alleviation?

Douglas Alexander: I could not agree more. I think that to act otherwise would genuinely constitute a retreat, not just in terms of Britain's national interests—I see the European Union as a means by which we can effect change on a broader canvas and more globally—but in doing a disservice to the world's poor. They need not just a successful bilateral aid programme from the United Kingdom, but the delivery of effective aid over a number of years from major players in the European Union. That is the intention behind the work in which we engage regularly with other development Ministers.

Sally Keeble: May I take up my right hon. Friend's point about aid effectiveness? He will be aware of today's coverage of the impact of higher food prices on the provision of humanitarian aid, especially food aid. How does he expect not just the UK but the EU, with its big responsibility for agricultural food production, to be able to deliver food aid to the neediest people?

Douglas Alexander: I sense that my hon. Friend is referring to Josette Sheeran, the director of the World Food Programme, who spoke on the radio this morning. I have had an opportunity to speak to her within the last month, when we discussed the issue of globally rising food prices. She said then, and repeated today, that she considers the World Food Programme's stocks to be cause for concern.
	I think that we shall have opportunities to work with ECHO, the European Humanitarian Aid Office, but many of us in the development community are turning our minds to the issue. For a number of years there have been relatively low commodity prices, including relatively low food prices, but given that the global population was 2 billion back in 1927 and will be 8 billion by 2027, continuing to provide decent and affordable food will pose a challenge to the international community.

Graham Brady: rose—

Douglas Alexander: I will give way to my former shadow.

Graham Brady: The Secretary of State has made a case for the division of aid between expenditure through the European Union and direct expenditure. Can he confirm that the proportion of British aid being spent through the EU is approximately 40 per cent., and, whatever the proportion, is it Government policy for it to be maintained in the future?

Douglas Alexander: I fear that I am not able to offer the hon. Gentleman a precise figure or recollection, but I will ask a ministerial colleague to confirm the figures. However, I do not believe the proportion to be anywhere near as high as 40 per cent. My recollection is that the United Kingdom contributes approximately £1 billion through a combination of European development fund and general European contribution, but for the sake of providing clarity to the House I will ensure that the specific figures are offered later.
	On our policy moving forward, there are certain obligatory payments in terms of the European budget, but we have been strong supporters of the European development fund, which of course exists outside the mainstream European budget, because we have been convinced as a result of both its focus on low-income countries and the effective influence we have been able to wield over it, that it provides a useful tool in our armoury for influencing other European countries to deliver aid effectively.

Rob Marris: On the subject of delivering aid effectively, does the Secretary of State welcome, as I do, article 210 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which appears on page 135 of the consolidated text of the EU treaties? Paragraph 1 states:
	"In order to promote the complementarity and efficiency of their action, the Union and the Member States shall coordinate their policies on development cooperation and shall consult each other on their aid programmes, including in international organisations and during international conferences. They may undertake joint action. Member States shall contribute if necessary to the implementation of Union aid programmes."
	That kind of co-ordination should, one hopes, do away with overlapping aid programmes, which we have sometimes seen in the past. In that sense, it is a great step forward.

Douglas Alexander: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was in Sierra Leone on Saturday, and when travelling through Freetown one sees literally dozens of signs representing different aid programmes that over time have worked in the country. As I said in a speech to a broad cross-section of Government Ministers and civil society, I hope that the next time I visit Sierra Leone I will see fewer signs and more co-ordination. It seems to me a basic aspect of best development practice that there is a great interest in all of us securing effective co-ordination between donors.
	Beyond showing the level of Europe's dedication to addressing global poverty, providing aid through the European Commission is beneficial in a number of practical ways. The EC works in developing countries where the UK does not. Because the EU represents 27 member states, we are stronger when we speak with one voice—whether on trade policy or other matters. Also, the EU collectively takes a leading role in many aid areas, including humanitarian assistance.
	Today, the European Union plays a major role in tackling poverty.

James McGovern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that EU aid not only benefits people in Africa and Asia, but has played a vital role in places such as Kosovo? Does he not also agree that the NATO intervention in Kosovo has helped that country move towards a fairer, more democratic society, and that it is not an unpardonable folly, as it has been characterised by the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)?

Douglas Alexander: I remember vociferously disagreeing with the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan back in the happy days of May 1999, and I continue to disagree with him not only on the conduct of the Scottish National party's policy, but on the policy that he advocated in relation to Kosovo. When Minister for Europe, I had the opportunity to visit Kosovo on a couple of occasions, and it is clear to me that it makes the case for so-called "soft power" on behalf of the European Union. We have a direct national interest in ensuring a degree of stability and prosperity in the Balkans. I defy any Member of any party to explain how we could have been as effective in influencing the western Balkans without the prospect of stabilisation in the first place, and the eventual prospect of a European future for many of those countries.

Gary Streeter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Douglas Alexander: I shall make a little progress before giving way.
	I do not particularly mind whether the principal magnet for those countries moving towards democratic standards and norms was the prospect of joining the world's largest single market and thereby securing prosperity, or the fact that the EU is now a beacon of modernity, because the engagement of the EU in countries such as Bosnia and Kosovo will be benign in years to come, as it represents an effective deployment of soft power.

Gary Streeter: I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that last point, as I hope to make clear later if I am called to speak. However, I wish to address now a point on which we did not agree a few weeks ago. I raised with the right hon. Gentleman the question of the linkage between aid policy and foreign policy and diplomacy. He ripped into me— [Interruption.] Yes, he did—and in a very unkind way, I thought. He reverted to discussing the "aid for trade" link that there used to be in this country, although that was not the issue I had raised. Surely he understands that the EU links aid with trade, as well as with foreign policy. He thinks that is the wrong thing for this country to do, so why should we put so much money into an EU aid policy that makes those linkages?

Douglas Alexander: It says something about the hon. Gentleman's standing that in response to his suggestion that I had ripped into him, I said that I hoped I had not done so—although the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), said that he hoped that I had. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if any discourtesy was extended to him in my earlier answer. His substantive point is important. He wants to know whether we can be sure that aid policies, be they the UK's or the EU's, have a firm foundation of poverty reduction. The insertion into the treaty of specific language on poverty reduction should give him, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, the assurance that they seek.

David Wright: Surely it is incredibly important to have an EU perspective, so that we can influence the approach of other groups, agencies and partners. I am thinking in particular of other big aid donor countries, such as the United States. Surely a united European position helps us to influence what countries such as the United States do.

Douglas Alexander: The point is well taken, although I would draw the House's attention not to the example of the United States but to that of the new EU member states. When I was Minister for Europe, I had the opportunity to visit a number of the so-called A10 countries. Partly because of their lack of historical engagement in Africa, for example—I say this with the greatest respect to them—they would not have naturally alighted on development assistance as a measure of their commitment to modern global society, but for a collective and individual judgment that supporting international development was part of being a good European. Notwithstanding the cultural differences across the EU's 27 members, that is why we are all collectively strengthened by working together on an issue such as international development. We bring the collective strength not of one country but of 27 countries to tasks such as tackling global poverty, which are big enough for us all and demand the engagement of us all.

Ann McKechin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in areas of conflict, and particularly in fragile states, the division between defence, security and development becomes increasingly blurred and the need to interlink those policies becomes more pressing? The European Union has a specific advantage in that role, because it can co-ordinate the approach of 27 different member states, as opposed to states acting separately.

Douglas Alexander: I agree with my hon. Friend. In July, I had the opportunity to visit El Fasher in northern Darfur, where I saw the work being done by, among others, the European Commission. In Bangladesh, the Cyclone Sidr effects were mitigated by support provided by the European Union. Thus in fragile or conflict-affected states the European Union has a role to play. It can often complement the work being done by member states.

Pete Wishart: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most important and decisive things the European Union can do to assist the developing world and create that level playing field is to reform the common agricultural policy? In 2005 Tony Blair said that he wanted not only to reform the CAP but to abolish it. What progress has been made towards that laudable aim, and how does this treaty help?

Douglas Alexander: There will be a fundamental review of the European Union's budget, and I should also mention the so-called CAP health check. On the basis of my experience as Minister for Europe, when I was party to the previous series of negotiations on the European Union budget, I respectfully suggest that if the hon. Gentleman is serious about having an impact on that budget, the last thing he would wish to do would be to rip Scotland out of the United Kingdom, in which we are one of the decisive and major players in the European Union, and render himself less relevant to the central discussions about the CAP or the EU budget.
	As I suggested, European aid is helping to make a difference in the fight against poverty. In India, the Commission has helped to construct more than 77,000 school buildings and reduce the number of children out of school from 25 million to 14 million in just five years. Humanitarian principles will for the first time be enshrined in EU law, ensuring that humanitarian aid is allocated purely on the basis of need, without consideration of the recipient's origins or beliefs. This is aid that really matters, because the EU is the world's leading humanitarian aid donor, helping some 18 million people in more than 60 countries every year. Indeed, last July when I visited northern Darfur I saw the kind of support being provided for people by the European Commission.
	Thirdly, the Lisbon treaty will improve coherence across all the EU's external actions—the source of some discussion already—ensuring that development objectives are taken into account in policies likely to affect developing countries. Such reform is as important as the changes to European aid, for although aid assistance will be necessary to tackle poverty in many developing countries, it will not be sufficient. Eliminating global poverty will require, beyond aid, the establishment of a global environment that allows developing countries to lift themselves out of poverty. The European Union can play an important role in creating such a global environment, through helping countries to manage the risks of conflict and climate change and to maximise the opportunities of international trade.
	Economic growth is the surest path out of poverty, and trade is crucial to growth, as has been borne out by experience within the European Union.

William Cash: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Douglas Alexander: I have been generous with the House, so I shall make a little progress.
	By 2006, the single market had boosted gross domestic product by an average of £360 for every person in the EU. Nearly 60 per cent. of the UK's trade is with other EU member states, and 3 million British jobs are linked to the export of UK goods and services to the EU. As well as being our most important market, the EU is of course the major trading partner for many developing countries and a major player in international trade negotiations.

Jo Swinson: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way. Today is the start of Fairtrade fortnight. The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that trade is in many ways more important than aid for developing countries, so what steps are our Government taking to try to remove some of the protectionism within Europe, which prevents many developing countries from making fair trade agreements with the UK and our EU partners?

Douglas Alexander: One of the specific steps we are taking is to increase our support for Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International—an international confederation that works beyond the boundaries of the UK. As the hon. Lady knows, the Fairtrade Foundation supports the growth of fair trade and ethical products in the UK, but the labelling organisation has a wider international mandate. That support is important and reflective of our international approach. I am proud to say that the UK has the most developed fair trade and ethical market anywhere. Our challenge is both to broaden and deepen the range of fair trade products purchased in UK shops and to support international efforts to make sure that fair trade products are available not just in the UK but elsewhere.
	As I was saying, the UK has been working to keep the EU's focus on fulfilling the promise of the Doha development round. As a result of the EU's economic partnership agreements, 35 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries have secured duty and quota-free access to EU markets. We now need a clear road map from the European Commission setting out how EPAs can be fully implemented to serve best the interests of the poor.

William Cash: The Secretary of State knows that, in common with several of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I take a considerable interest in third-world matters. He has just referred to economic partnership agreements. Does he agree that there are severe criticisms from non-governmental organisations of how EPAs work in practice? There is strong concern about some aspects of climate change policy, as applied by the EU in relation to biodiesel. There is also the problem of corruption and related issues and the failure of the Court of Auditors, not to mention the question of the CAP. Is the right hon. Gentleman not giving us rather a rosy picture of what the EU can achieve?

Douglas Alexander: I think the hon. Gentleman must be making up for lost time, as a number of those points were dealt with before he was in the Chamber. However, I shall endeavour to deal with at least the first point that he set out. I pay due respect and deference to his interest in the concerns of developing countries, particularly in relation to water and sanitation. He has a long-standing commitment to and interest in those matters, and it is right that all of us on the Labour Benches should acknowledge his role and expertise in those areas.
	However, I am not convinced by the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman offers of the practice of EPAs, not least because they have been agreed only in recent months and weeks, and they are not yet in force—but I fully accept that there are continuing concerns about some of the policies. Last Friday I was in Ghana, where I spoke with the President of Ghana, who expressed concerns. Ghana has signed an interim agreement, and the President is keen to ensure that the full development potential of the EPA is realised in the weeks and months ahead.
	Since we set out our policy in 2005, it is fair to say that, alongside the Germans, Swedes and Norwegians, we have been unyielding in our efforts in the Council of Ministers constantly to advocate that EPAs should recognise that reciprocity under World Trade Organisation rules need not mean symmetry—in the sense that there can be longer opening periods in developing countries.
	Secondly, we have advocated effective aid for trade to support those countries' transition to a more open-market environment, and we will continue to argue the case for that at Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. When I attended such a meeting with the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in November, we met heads of Caribbean nations, who signed a full EPA before the end of last year. They look to the United Kingdom to argue their case in the corridors of the European Union, and I am glad to say that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), and I sought to fulfil that obligation by making clear the case not just for the disbursement of support for sugar and bananas but, more generally, for the kind of EPA that emerged. It is a matter that we care about and are concerned about, and we have continued to act to advance it on behalf of developing countries.

Mike Hancock: Before the Secretary of State tells us that he has been to Bangladesh, I shall say that I was there last week. I pay tribute to Department for International Development staff there, particularly Chris Austin and his crowd, who were working down in the cyclone-hit areas. One thing that struck me was the amount of aid that we are giving to such a country. I should like a firm assurance that our commitment to countries such as Bangladesh will not be diluted by the new agreement with our colleagues in Europe. Such countries desperately need the resources that they are getting from us, and the help from DFID and NGOs. Is the Secretary of State absolutely convinced that those will not be diluted in any way?

Douglas Alexander: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that although the hon. Gentleman beat me to Bangladesh—at least this year—I had the opportunity to visit in December, when I met Chris Austin and his team. The hon. Gentleman will be aware from his visit that in Dhaka, I was able to announce a significant uplift in the support that we offer to Bangladesh. In many ways, it is on the front line of one of the great challenges that is faced not just by DFID, but across the developed world: simultaneous human development and climate change. That is why we have worked so hard with Chris Austin and the team in Dhaka, who are doing an outstanding job on our behalf to frame policies that recognise not only the need for adaptation, but the pressing humanitarian difficulties that still afflict that country.
	When I travelled down to the cyclone-affected areas in Bangladesh, as I know the hon. Gentleman did, I felt huge pride in the work being done not just on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom, but by a range of agencies, such as Save the Children, which was running a centre for many children who had been orphaned as a consequence of the cyclone. It is a huge credit to such organisations that, even in a country as far away as Bangladesh, British agencies working with partners from Bangladesh can make a real difference on the ground.

Rob Marris: While my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is on his Cook's tour of the subcontinent, will he tell the House whether he thinks the European Union and the United Kingdom have the balance of international aid right, given that there are more poor people in India than in the whole of Africa?

Douglas Alexander: Of course my hon. Friend is right to recognise that there are vast numbers of poor people in India, which partly explains why the Department's largest bilateral programme is with India. He also makes the fair, broader point that given the appropriate focus in the Department on low-income countries, we need to be mindful of the fact that there continue to be large numbers of poor people in middle-income countries. Equally, it is important to recognise that it is reasonable to look to a country such as India, whose aid dependency is diminishing as foreign reserves rise, to have a growing capacity to take responsibility for the poor people within its borders. In that sense, we have an effective development relationship with India, which was a subject of discussion between our Prime Minister and Manmohan Singh, the Indian Prime Minister, at the recent UK-India summit, but we need to continue to watch the situation.

Denis MacShane: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), if there are so many poor people in India, why is India running the biggest single overseas aid programme of any country in the region bar Japan? Surely Indian money should be kept at home, rather than used to meddle and extend India's political reach in other countries in the region.

Douglas Alexander: I get the sense that my right hon. Friend has a particular concern relating to India's foreign policy, and perhaps that of the Government, so I shall leave that matter alone. I observe, though, that countries such as China that have historically been recipients of international aid are increasingly taking their place as responsible global citizens and contributing, for example, to IDA 15, the World Bank's latest replenishment round. We all have an interest in supporting countries such as China in playing a bigger role in multilateral aid organisations such as the World Bank.
	As well as helping to change the rules so that developing countries can play a part in international trade, we must help them to build their capacity to do so. The European Union has made a commitment to spend €2 billion on aid for trade by 2010 to help countries compete, and the UK has committed to spend £100 million a year on it by 2010. The European Commission is also forging a global reputation for the quality of its road infrastructure programmes. Roads are vital to increasing trade links within and between countries. In a region of south-west Tanzania criss-crossed by rivers and streams, the Commission has rehabilitated the road network, helping growers to reach marketplaces, farmers to access banks and teachers and students to travel to school.
	However, the promise of increased trade cannot be realised in a country riven by conflict. Europe's history shows that there can be little development without security, and developing countries live that reality. On average, a civil war leads to economic costs of more than £25 billion, and the equivalent of 20 years of lost development. Resolving and preventing conflict beyond European borders must be a priority for both UK and European aid. The UK's new stabilisation fund of £600 million over three years is being established jointly by the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence in order better to prevent and respond to conflict in developing countries.
	The European Union's support for the elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo showed that the EU too can play an important stabilisation role. The tragic violence that followed the election result should not mask that country's achievement in holding its first democratic elections for 40 years. Some 2,000 EU troops supported the UN to maintain a peaceful environment and ensure high voter turnout, EU logistical support transported 1,000 tonnes of ballot papers throughout a country the size of western Europe with almost no infrastructure, and the first European police mission in Africa provided training and support to Kinshasa's police force.
	As we have heard, climate change is one of the greatest threats facing development. Dealing with dangerous climate change is a clear priority for my Department, because developing countries, which are least able to cope with the effects of climate change, are most immediately vulnerable to suffering its consequences. We are therefore working across Government towards a global post-Kyoto framework, helping to build a global low-carbon economy and protecting the most vulnerable against the impact of climate change.
	Earlier this month, I announced that my Department will spend more than £100 million over the next five years on researching the impact of climate change on the most vulnerable developing countries and helping those countries to put that information to good use. The UK will also play a role within the European Union to mitigate further climate change and help poor countries to adapt to the change that is now inevitable. The EU is recognised as a global leader on climate change. EU negotiators played a key role in securing agreement for a global adaptation fund for developing countries at the Bali conference, Europe's unilateral pledge to reduce greenhouse gases by 20 per cent. by 2020 shows the seriousness of our intentions, and our emissions trading scheme is the first of its kind in the world. We need to ensure next that the emissions trading scheme links with others to become part of a global carbon market, press ahead with negotiations for a post-Kyoto deal, and establish more funding to protect the most vulnerable.
	As we debate the terms of the Lisbon treaty, we live in a world where more than 1 million people are killed by malaria every year, 72 million children are denied the chance to go to primary school and 980 million people continue to live on less than 50p a day. Britain can choose either to retreat from that challenge or to rise to it. This Government believe that we must tackle global poverty, which is why our aid budget will rise to over £9 billion by 2010, roughly three times what it was in 1997. We also recognise that we cannot tackle this global problem alone, which is why the Prime Minister, with Ban Ki-moon, has called for the creation this year of a global partnership for development. That partnership must include the European Union, the developing world's largest donor and biggest trading partner. Britain can choose either to retreat from Europe or to engage with it and help Europe to be a world leader in the fight against global poverty.
	The Lisbon treaty will improve Europe's efforts to tackle hunger, disease and illiteracy around the world. Those who seek to attack the treaty by attacking its development provisions risk doing great harm to the interests of the world's poorest people. I commend the motion to the House.

Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, To leave out from 'House' to end and to insert instead thereof:
	"disapproves of the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of international development because the Treaty does nothing to improve the efficiency of European Union aid, increases the influence of the EU's foreign policy over its humanitarian aid and development assistance, decreases the freedom of member states to react to international crises, diverts resources to a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, downgrades the least developed countries, is ambiguous about competence on international development, and overall is a step backwards in the provision of aid to the developing world.".
	Today's debate on international development provisions in the treaty is welcome, and I hope that the Secretary of State will join in the consensus—embraced by his predecessor, among others—that we should have more debates on international development in the House. It is a subject of huge interest to our constituents, and it is vital at this time. International development deserves a much higher profile in this place.
	I welcome the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), to his new post. One of the most satisfying aspects of international development policy is that it is not a Labour, Conservative or Liberal subject, but a British policy and a British agenda. Perhaps, like me, the hon. Gentleman will see it as his role to try to keep the Secretary of State and his Ministers up to the mark in successfully pursuing our common objectives, which our generation has a real chance of achieving.
	We welcome much of what the Secretary of State said today, particularly his comments towards the end of his speech about climate change. We Conservative Members have argued for some time that the issue for Europe is tackling the three great challenges of our age: global poverty, global warming and global competitiveness. Many of the European Union's policies—on trade, migration, sanctions and foreign policy—have profound impacts on international development.
	Europe experiences at first hand the impact of poverty. Every year, thousands of young men and women—often bright, hard-working, motivated people, sometimes the cream of Africa—risk their lives seeking to make the perilous crossing from Senegal and Libya to the Canaries, Malta or Italy in search of a better life. They place themselves in the hands of the modern equivalent of the slave trade. Any attempt to deal with the migration challenge that the EU faces must have an international development aspect.
	The EU is one of the world's biggest donors. It provides 57 per cent. of the world's official development assistance, which amounted to some €45.3 billion in 2005. About a sixth of that—€7.5 billion—was managed by the European Commission. That aid went to approximately 160 countries, territories or organisations. The Commission has about 3,500 aid and development staff. There is no doubt that the EU is a major player in international development; that is why it is so disappointing that the treaty bypasses many issues that are literally vital to billions of poor people around the world.
	The treaty misses the opportunity to support open markets and to significantly rejuvenate the EU's aid programme, which, despite recent improvements, is still underperforming. One of the Secretary of State's distinguished predecessors, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), whose contribution is greatly underrated, but not by Conservative Members, branded the European Union's aid
	"an outrage and a disgrace".
	She said that EU aid is
	"skewed quite dreadfully against the poorest countries",
	and that
	"You can't keep throwing money and people into an inefficient organisation".
	There have been improvements since then, but we should face facts: British aid, on the whole, is much better than that spent through the EU. It is better managed, more focused on tackling poverty, and more decentralised.
	Many things need to be done urgently to improve the quality of European Union aid. The treaty of Lisbon touches on some of them. We welcome the legally enshrined emphasis on poverty eradication, but the treaty ignores many issues, which I shall mention later. It is on those key issues that the Government need to focus.

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman referred to the improvements that have been made to the way in which the European Union disburses and manages its aid budget, but does he not realise that it is absurd for the Opposition to demand that EU aid, and trade policies towards developing countries, be made even more effective while they oppose a treaty that will make it easier for Britain to secure its objectives within the EU, and while they pursue policies that would leave Britain isolated and ineffective within the EU? We cannot have both a weak Britain and an effective Europe.

Andrew Mitchell: I reject entirely the right hon. Lady's supposition. One can have better aid effectiveness from Europe without the treaty. I shall make it absolutely clear how that could be done.

Tony Baldry: Before my hon. Friend does so, does he agree that it is curious that, listening to the Secretary of State, one would think that this was a treaty of perfection? Over the days in which we have debated the Lisbon treaty, the Government have sought to pray in aid the support of a number of non-governmental organisations. Has my hon. Friend seen early-day motions 990, 1011 and 1012, which express the concerns of Oxfam, Save the Children and ActionAid, and use the words, "concern", "caveats", "omission" and "reservations"? The Secretary of State did not make reference to any of that: it was as if NGOs' concerns simply did not exist.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is on to something. However, in deference to Ministers I should say that the crimes of which he accuses the Government were committed by the Foreign Secretary, not the International Development Secretary.

Tony Baldry: They are a collective Government.

Andrew Mitchell: They are indeed a collective Government, and I shall come on to the very point that my hon. Friend made.
	I was talking about the issues on which the Government must focus in the debate. They not only support a treaty that does the European aid effort too little good and too much harm but, with their usual dishonesty and lack of direction, they support the treaty without the consent of our constituents, whom the Government assured—indeed, promised—a referendum if the situation arose. We may be in no doubt, as previous debates have underlined, that the Government have once again gone back on their word, supporting bureaucracy over democracy, by denying the public a say.
	In fact, the Government's approach to the debate on EU aid is typical of their disingenuousness, for the very reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). The Government misrepresented the views of some our leading NGOs by claiming that they supported the treaty. They are now pushing for the very reforms of EU aid that they previously opposed in negotiations. On 21 January, the Foreign Secretary said:
	"One World Action, Action Aid and Oxfam have announced their support for the measures on development co-operation."—[ Official Report, 21 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1241.]
	The Foreign Secretary had clearly not read the excellent briefing note prepared by BOND—British Overseas NGOs for Development—on the treaty. In precise and measured terms, it sets out both the things that the NGO community supports in the treaty and those that it opposes. Such disingenuous manoeuvres by the Government do not reflect well on them. Indeed, a representative of a leading NGO called my office the day after the Foreign Secretary made his misleading claim to clarify the fact that that NGO did not have a position on whether the treaty as a whole should be ratified or whether there should be a referendum. Today, a group of NGOs, including Oxfam and Christian Aid, have written an open letter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, distancing themselves from the Government's claims that the NGOs back the treaty.

Douglas Alexander: In the interests of clarity, and in the light of the observation by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that we are, indeed, a collective Government, may I draw the attention of the House to the letter that was sent to my colleague, the Minister for Europe, on 18 November 2007, signed by Charlotte Imbert, the general secretary of BOND, which stated:
	"The EU Reform Treaty, in our view, has the potential for the EU to deliver a stronger poverty focus, and greater coherence in its development and humanitarian work. We welcome the fact that in the Treaty the eradication of poverty is the primary focus of development co-operation, offering a legal basis and purpose to European development assistance. The Treaty also represents a significant positive shift whereby all EU policies that affect developing countries will need to reflect (and not undermine) development and humanitarian objectives"?
	I am not sure whether that clarifies the views of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell).

Andrew Mitchell: It certainly does not. The right hon. Gentleman is quoting selectively from a document. If he looked at the early-day motions, and followed what I said carefully, he would know that the suggestion was that the Foreign Secretary misrepresented the views of BOND and others. That is absolutely clear from the early-day motions.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned parts of a BOND paper with which he agreed.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Conservative party, mentioned the more sceptical parts with which he agreed. Does he agree with the parts of the paper that the Secretary of State has just quoted, or is he picking selectively from that BOND paper?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has just undermined the Secretary of State's statement, by accepting that the BOND paper was a carefully nuanced examination of the treaty—both good and bad points. The point that I am making is that the Foreign Secretary said clearly—I quoted him directly—that BOND and the NGOs were in favour of the treaty. That is not the case, as is apparent if one reads the whole letter.

Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he agrees with everything that BOND states, or does he agree only with parts of the paper?

Andrew Mitchell: There is much in the letter that BOND issued, as I said, and much more with which I agree, but I will not give a careful dialectic for every word in the document.
	The Foreign Secretary's misrepresentation of the NGOs' position is worrying for two reasons. First—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I get a little uneasy when words such as "misrepresentation" and "mislead" are brought into debate. I know that there is probably the inaudible qualification "inadvertent", "mistaken" and so on, but we are starting to get into difficult territory when those words are used. I urge caution on the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Mitchell: Thank you for keeping me on the straight and narrow, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	First, the representations of the NGOs' position by the Foreign Secretary show that he has not examined closely the many concerns that they have raised about the treaty with regard to international development. I am sure that Ministers are aware of those concerns, and I hope that they will urgently meet the Foreign Secretary to raise them. Secondly, they show yet again that the Government are willing to indulge in deceitful arguments to promote the treaty. This comes as no surprise—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is unacceptable to pursue that when I have given a ruling. There is no direct accusation against a person. That is one thing, but the very fact that such words are used creates a sense of unease. Our debate should be above that level.

Andrew Mitchell: The Government's approach comes as no surprise, given their determination to force through the treaty, which brings about major constitutional changes, without adequate scrutiny and without letting the British people have their say.

Richard Burden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, my Birmingham colleague. I will not ask him to go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) did when he asked whether the hon. Gentleman agreed with every word from BOND. However, does he agree with this aspect of what BOND said:
	"The implementation of the EU Reform Treaty will be the only real opportunity between now and next Financial Perspectives in 2014 to ensure that there is greater coherence between development cooperation and other EU external action policies and to improve effectiveness and impact of EC development cooperation"?
	Does he agree with BOND at least on that point?

Andrew Mitchell: The implementation of the treaty could be an opportunity, but it is not the only opportunity, as I shall explain.
	The hon. Gentleman's intervention gives me the opportunity to say that I have been truly shocked by the menacing bullying tactics used by the Government Whips Office to cajole and intimidate their Back Benchers into the pro-Government Lobby. Some particularly appalling reports have been carried in the excellent newspaper,  The Birmingham Post, which this week celebrates its 150th anniversary as Birmingham's leading newspaper.

Douglas Alexander: For clarity, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he was a Whip in the Conservative Government during the passage of the Maastricht Bill?

Andrew Mitchell: I certainly give the Secretary of State that confirmation.

William Cash: May I assure my hon. Friend—this is meant to be helpful—that nothing that he or any of the other Whips said made the slightest difference, unlike in the present case, to anything that we thought, said or did. It was done for the best of reasons, and as the speech that he is developing demonstrates, we did what we did, and others have subsequently found that that was the right thing to do.

Andrew Mitchell: There have been numerous reports of Labour Members returning from their constituencies after a weekend of having their backbone stiffened by constituents understandably trying to persuade them to honour their election manifesto promises, on which they were elected, to hold a referendum, only to have those early sparks of integrity and independence snuffed out by the brute force of the Government Whips Office. Indeed, such is the terror induced by the Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), that it is said that younger members of the Labour party fear to walk past the door to his office, in much the same way as Russian citizens during the Stalinist era would avoid walking past the doorway to the KGB prison and torture chamber on Lubyanka street in Moscow.

Douglas Alexander: Does the hon. Gentleman think it reasonable or appropriate to consider KGB torture chambers with the conduct of Members of this House? I respectfully ask him to consider his remarks carefully; hopefully, he will have the wisdom to withdraw them.

Andrew Mitchell: I will certainly not withdraw them.
	It is therefore particularly embarrassing for the Government that many of the substantial points of the Lisbon treaty which we are discussing today were opposed by the British Government while they were being negotiated.
	I turn to five of those points. The first involves the new articles that set up qualified majority voting on urgent macro-financial and humanitarian aid. Although that ostensibly seems a benign change and is cited by the Government as an uncontroversial example of a move to QMV, it could raise important questions. To take a real example from the recent past, it might have been used to decide whether the European Union should continue to fund the Palestinian Authority after the 2006 elections, which returned Hamas to power. The UK and some other member states disagreed about that; the UK was keen to fund only non-governmental organisations, not the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. Far from being uncontroversial, the point was rightly opposed by the Government in negotiations. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) argued that
	"Macro-financial assistance has been agreed urgently when required",
	and that moving to QMV was therefore unnecessary. The Government are now fighting for a treaty that they themselves believe to contain elements that are damaging to the interests of some of the poorest people in the world. I hope that they will support the amendments that we have tabled to address the issue.
	The second point is the treaty's provision for the creation of a European voluntary humanitarian aid corps. That is a deeply questionable idea. The Secretary of State will know that, in general, my party is enthusiastic about the role that volunteers from developed and developing countries can play in international development; they help make a valuable contribution in poor countries, and—equally importantly—learn about the issues and become advocates for change.
	Many Members will be aware of the work done by Voluntary Service Overseas, an outstanding British charity with which my party worked closely last year in Rwanda. Volunteering can be a positive experience. However, when it comes to urgent humanitarian assistance, we must recognise that there is a limit to what volunteers, however enthusiastic and well intentioned, can do. The Government agree with me; in negotiations on the constitution on that point, the right hon. Member for Neath said:
	"The idea of establishing a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps should have no place within the EU's humanitarian action".
	His wise judgment has been backed up by NGOs and BOND, which say:
	"We oppose the creation of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps".
	They go on to argue:
	"Humanitarian response is for experienced, trained professionals, not for volunteers, especially in dangerous crises."
	They warn that a voluntary aid corps might not be guided by the highly important principles and commitments of professional aid workers.
	A few years ago, that sentiment was echoed by Poul Nielson, then European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid. On 7 November 2003, he said:
	"Humanitarian aid should be the 'business' of experienced, trained professionals such as NGOs and international organisations. It should not be delegated to a voluntary humanitarian aid corps, no matter how enthusiastic."
	He added that
	"humanitarian aid is carried out in emergency contexts, wars, natural disasters, huge displacements of people, and in these contexts, know-how, experience and fool-proof reactions are essential as dangerous and traumatising situations are too often the rule."
	The Secretary of State will note that we have tabled an amendment on that point. I hope that he will feel able to support it; we are merely reflecting the views of the Government during the negotiations.

Sally Keeble: As a former journalist on  The Birmingham Post, may I say that even that august newspaper is prone to journalistic embroidery, like all other newspapers? I speak from experience.
	The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the importance of international volunteering; it was indeed what was behind his party's important initiative in going to Rwanda, and I know that that was transformative for many of his colleagues. That was an example of the role that international volunteering can play. The hon. Gentleman should not criticise the type of provision that he has mentioned.

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I understand her point, but I hope that I was making it absolutely clear that the business of humanitarian aid predominantly involves a greater degree of professionalism than can, inevitably, be provided by such a corps.
	The third area that I want to discuss is poverty eradication. Conservative Members welcome the fact that the treaty will hard-wire the eradication of poverty as an objective of the European Union; that is surely good news. We applaud the EU's support for the UK's drive to scale up aid among member states, as did the Secretary of State when he cited the example of Gleneagles. However, judging by the disappointing record of many EU countries on delivering on their promises, there is still a long way to go. An influential report last year by the think-tank, Data, rightly named and shamed certain member states for not living up to their promises. It found that France, Germany, Italy and a number of other European Union countries are failing to live up to the solemn pledges on increased aid that they made at Gleneagles in 2005. That is, after all, why the then Prime Minister arranged for those pledges to be signed in front of the cameras of the world's media.

William Cash: I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. Many of us present are extremely keen to ensure that poverty is eradicated and have individually and collectively done as much as possible to try to make that case. However, the legal frameworks that are created for the common commercial policy, for example, and its connection to the External Action Service and all the rest that goes with it, create a dynamic that can positively prevent the very objectives that the Government have set themselves in relation to the millennium goals, because the European Union probably will not be able to achieve them.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I hope he will develop if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	From 2004 to 2006, Germany increased its overseas development assistance by a mere 2 per cent. In order to live up to its promises it needs, by contrast, to increase its aid by $869 million per year each year from 2007 to 2010. Italy, whose overseas development assistance fell by 30 per cent. from 2004 to 2006, now needs to give an additional $1.2 billion each year until 2010 if it is to maintain its side of the deal. France needs an additional $1.5 billion for the same period. Those countries, and others, are showing little or no sign of fulfilling the promises that they made to the developing world.

David Wright: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us how, by withdrawing from the treaty, he would secure an increase in those budgets from those member states? What alternative proposal does he have to ensure that they increase their budgets, and when will he deliver it?

Andrew Mitchell: Those countries do not need a treaty in order to fulfil what they promised to poor countries in front of the world's media.
	We are concerned that the Lisbon treaty removes the reference to "the most disadvantaged" developing countries as a focus of the EU development co-operation policy. It is right that the EU should, to some extent, play to its comparative advantage of assistance to near-Europe countries. They are, after all, the most proximate markets for the European Union, and we have a strong interest in their growth and development. However, we must ensure that the focus is on reducing poverty. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), will know that I am a keen student of his speeches. One of my personal favourites is his speech entitled "Multilateral aid and the European Union's contribution to meeting the Millennium Development Goals", which he will remember he delivered on 24 February 2005, and in which he said:
	"EC aid is still not sufficiently focused on meeting the millennium development goals...Europe spends nearly $100 in aid for every poor person living in the Mediterranean—and less than $1 for every poor person in Asia, which is, alongside Africa, the key 'battleground' for the achievement of the millennium development goals. Why is a child in Egypt worth 100 times more than a child in Bangladesh?"
	That is a well-made point with which Conservative Members have much sympathy. The OECD is in agreement, saying that
	"the Commission should look for opportunities to increase assistance to low income countries."
	I hope that the Minister will continue to fight to ensure that the European Union focuses its aid on the people who really need it. I know from his words that he will want to support our amendment, as it seeks to retain the reference to "the most disadvantaged" as a target for European aid.
	A fourth key concern about the treaty is that development may be relegated to second-tier status within the EU's external action framework—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. I know that that is a concern echoed by many officials in DFID. DFID's multilateral development effectiveness summary of 2007 noted:
	"Community aid...sits in the middle of the Union's wider external policy aims, with sometimes competing agendas".
	Furthermore, the respected OECD development assistance committee has found a risk that the ambitious multiple objectives of the consensus, including expanded political ones, could diffuse a focus on development and undermine longer-term strategic priorities. Members will note that we have tabled amendments on that point. It is surely inconceivable that Ministers will not support them, especially when the Government were, not so long ago, so very keen to ensure that the specific identity of development objectives was not undermined in the EU's external action. We want to ensure that development retains a strong profile within the EU's external action programme.
	We are strongly supportive of an independent DFID. Why, then, do the Government support a treaty that seeks to move Europe the other way, subsuming development within the common external action programme? There is also an important point about leadership. Many observers are concerned that a reduction in the number of Commissioners could mean that there would be no Commissioner for development. BOND has made it clear that having a separate Commissioner for development is highly important, particularly in closing the gap between EU development policy and its implementation. BOND has said:
	"We must ensure that there is a strong and independent voice for development."
	However, the principle of independence is missing from the treaty's section on humanitarian aid.
	Fifthly, the Minister will note that we have tabled an amendment addressing the question of shared competency over matters of international development. We seek clarification from the Secretary of State on what that will mean. We hope that he will be able to reassure us that there is no danger of the EU's overruling Britain's decisions on aid policy.
	More generally, the treaty fails to address the many things that must be done to reform and improve the delivery of European Union aid. Such aid has been criticised for involving heavy bureaucracy and slow disbursal. In its oral evidence to the July 2006 House of Lords report on EU-Africa relations, BOND castigated the EU's record of
	"slow disbursement of funds, bureaucratic procedures and lack of capacity",
	which all
	"continue to hinder the effectiveness of European Community aid".
	A report by DFID suggested that delays were due to
	"the inner workings of a byzantine bureaucracy with a procedure-driven ethos."
	Ironically, a study by the Commission found that 40 per cent. of delays to aid projects were the result of the administrative processes of the European Union, while only 25 per cent. were due to administrative problems in the developing countries receiving aid. A survey of aid recipient countries by Oxfam suggests that a fifth of EU aid arrives more than a year late, compared with just 3 per cent. of that from other aid donors.
	The highly respected think-tank Open Europe has highlighted that one particularly wasteful administrative activity is the EU's funding of other multilateral institutions, particularly the World Bank's International Development Association. Over the past four years, the EU has passed on $2.1 billion of its budget to other multilateral organisations. That means a wasteful chain of transfers: national agencies administer a transfer to the EU, which then administers a transfer to another multilateral organisation, which then eventually administers aid to the recipient country, with administrative costs and delay at each stage. There are also serious concerns about fraud and waste in the European aid programme. Open Europe explains that just over 7 per cent. of the EU budget is spent on overseas aid, while aid programmes account for 21 per cent. of fraud investigations by OLAF, the European anti-fraud office. Fraud in this area is far higher than the Brussels average.
	Despite attempts at reform, serious cases of fraud and waste are still coming to light. For example, in 2006, a report by the EU's Court of Auditors found that aid for Russia had been misspent. It noted that one project had involved inventing a region on paper to meet the criteria for receiving EU funds, and fitness equipment that was supposed to help children ended up being used by Russian soldiers. I have read with great interest the multilateral development effectiveness summaries that have been posted recently on the DFID website. There is a lack of clarity about exactly how DFID assesses which multilateral agencies do the best job of tackling poverty. What we really need is much stronger impact evaluation of global aid so that we can make informed decisions about which channels will spend our aid most effectively.
	The treaty calls for coherence in EU policies that affect poor countries. At the moment, there is manifestly a lack of coherence. There is a clear need to take action on that. In particular, the treaty fails to underline the importance of development assistance in tackling physical and psychological barriers to trade in poor countries. That is one of the most important aspects of all development. If our aid money is not to be wasted, poor countries must ultimately be able to trade their way out of poverty. Aid is a means to an end and not an end in itself.

Rob Marris: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome, like me, article 209 on page 135 of the consolidated text, which states:
	"The Union may conclude with third countries and competent international organisations any agreement helping to achieve the objectives referred to in Article 21",
	and so on? Paragraph (e) of article 21 refers to encouraging
	"the integration of all countries into the world economy, including through the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade".
	Taken as a whole, the provisions do link aid and trade and the development of countries. I welcome that; does the hon. Gentleman?

Andrew Mitchell: I hesitate to give the hon. Gentleman a straight answer, because he is a distinguished lawyer, but on the face of it there is much that we support in there. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has tabled an amendment that might probe that very matter.
	The treaty strengthens the EU power over trade policy, which, incidentally, the Government were concerned about during negotiations. Unfortunately, that means that protectionist lobbies in Brussels could well hinder prospects for developing countries' economies. As DFID says:
	"The impact of EU on developing countries is a result of all its external policies. Not all of them are coherent with a poverty reduction agenda, most notable the CAP."
	The treaty postulates no significant reform of the common agricultural policy. The Government failed to get real reform when this country held the presidency in 2005.
	The treaty makes no mention of much needed reforms to the EU's "Everything but Arms" scheme. We certainly welcome preferential trade schemes that help the poorest countries, but "Everything but Arms" can and must do better. As the respected development economist Paul Collier writes on "Everything but Arms":
	"The devil is in the details and the details are wrong, probably deliberately".
	Over-complex, unclear and restrictive rules of origin are particularly stifling the scheme's effectiveness. A similar scheme, the US's African Growth and Opportunity Act 2000, which has included special waivers on complex rules of origin, has performed much better. AGOA has been able to effect a 50 per cent. increase in African apparel exports, whereas the "Everything but Arms" scheme has had little such success.
	As we have heard, today marks the beginning of Fairtrade fortnight. We on the Conservative Benches strongly support allowing producers in poor countries the chance to set themselves free from the shackles of poverty by ensuring that they are paid a decent wage for their labours. We must also see Fairtrade fortnight as an opportunity to highlight the injustices of EU trade policy. All over the UK, as well as in many other countries, non-governmental organisations, local authorities, trading associations, producers and vast numbers of the public will voice their support for ethical economics.

Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge the work that we and a number of member states have been doing in the course of the negotiations to push for significant reform of the rules of origin, precisely because of the point that he makes? Indeed, one of the reasons why Lesotho welcomed the economic partnership agreement discussions is that it will benefit significantly from liberalised rules of origin.

Andrew Mitchell: I acknowledge that many have argued passionately for the reform of the rules of origin. My point is that nothing in the treaty gives us any courage or hope that that might take place.
	Disappointingly, the EU's trade policies remain manifestly unfair. The "Everything but Arms" scheme is woefully far from fulfilling its potential and many have argued that it is even having negative effects. The EU's direct export subsidies entrench impoverishment in developing countries and drain European taxpayers' pockets. I hope that the Secretary of State will join me during Fairtrade fortnight in calling for the EU to listen to its citizens and make earnest reform of its trade policy.

Gareth Thomas: Reform of rules of origin does not require the EC treaty; it simply requires agreement with the Commission and across member states. The reformed rules of origin available to Lesotho have been in place since 1 January.

Andrew Mitchell: The Under-Secretary underlines the point that we do not need a treaty to make progress. That is at the heart of the arguments that Conservative Members have presented for some days. However, if we are to have a treaty, it might at least deal with the important aspect that I mentioned.
	Our central concerns remain that the European Union should first get right what it is supposed to be doing before trying to accrue yet more powers from national Governments. The European Union could do much better. It could tackle the key issue for development: dismantling European Union protectionism. Instead, the treaty gives the European Union more power over trade, which may make further necessary reform of the common agricultural policy even harder.
	For the Government's failure to honour their promise of a referendum, and for the reasons in our amendment, which clearly lists all those matters in which the Government failed to achieve their negotiating objectives, I urge the House to support our amendment and send a clear message about European Union complacency on a vital aspect of our national interest.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has placed a 12-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches, which operates from now.

Hugh Bayley: One of the Labour Government's great achievements has been to make poverty alleviation the primary goal of our international development policy. We have won widespread public support for that policy and now even the Conservative party endorses it. It was not always so.
	In the dogdays of the Conservative Government, I introduced an overseas development and co-operation amendment Bill, which sought to make poverty alleviation the primary purpose of British aid. Perhaps unsurprisingly, under the Conservative Government, it never reached the statute book. It is worth remembering the state of British development policy at that time.
	During the 1992-97 Parliament, aid contributions fell as a proportion of Britain's gross domestic product. Given that all parties now support focusing on poverty as the primary purpose of aid, it is significant that, during that time, the percentage of British aid to poor countries fell from 80 to 69 per cent. Aid to India fell by 23 per cent., whereas aid to Indonesia, which at that time had a per capita gross domestic product three times that of India, increased by 79 per cent. Singapore and Hong Kong then had a per capita gross domestic product higher than that of the United Kingdom; nevertheless they received more aid per person than Vietnam, one of the poorest countries in Asia.
	I congratulate the Conservative party on catching up. Conservative Members, who now say that they support relieving poverty as a primary goal for British aid, tonight have the opportunity to show that they mean it. By supporting the Lisbon treaty, they will require the European Union to adopt a similar policy to the British Government's.
	The treaty states:
	"The Union's development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty."
	If Conservative Members genuinely believe what they have been telling the House for the past year or two—that it is important for Britain and the European Union to make poverty alleviation the primary purpose of aid—they should support the treaty. We will watch tonight to see whether they do that.

Andrew Mitchell: There is a fundamental flaw at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument. We embrace his points about poverty alleviation and the fight against poverty, but we do not need a treaty for that.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman says that no treaty is needed to fight poverty, but there was no treaty requirement to do that when his party was in power and it did not happen. There was no treaty requirement to do it over the past 10 years, when it has been British policy, and there has been only a slight movement in that direction—the proportion of EU aid going to least developed countries has increased in recent years from about 40 to 46 per cent. Not having a treaty does not lead to the implementation of a poverty reduction policy, but now we have the opportunity to provide, within the European Union, a treaty requirement for a poverty focus to aid. That can surely do nothing but help.

Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman and I are of one mind on this issue, but what I do not understand about that argument is why the treaty removes the phrase "the most disadvantaged". My concern about EU aid increasing is that money is being given to middle income states, such as Morocco and Tunisia, for perfectly understandable reasons—Spain, Italy and others want to use it to prevent migration—and that less money is going to very poor countries. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give some thought to why that is. Also, the Government opposed the removal of the phrase "the most disadvantaged" in negotiations, but the Secretary of State made practically no reference to that, and I do not understand why not.

Hugh Bayley: The current situation is as the hon. Gentleman outlined. Some of the biggest recipients of aid from Europe include the Maghreb countries, Egypt, Sudan and Morocco. It is because of the large amounts of aid that those countries receive that relatively less, as a proportion of European aid as a whole, goes to the poorest countries. The status quo permits a greater proportion of European Community development assistance to go to countries that are not the least developed. With the change in the treaty, we now have a lever to use in the European Union to ensure that that policy changes and that a greater proportion of aid goes to the least developed countries, which need it most.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman and I have worked together on a number of matters relating to the eradication of poverty in the third world. Does he not agree that provisions for the eradication of corruption would be worthy of inclusion in any arrangement? It is precisely because of the defensive nature of the European Union about questions of that kind that there is no such provision. Such a provision would really help to eradicate poverty, and I say that without prejudice to the fact that I do not believe that the treaty route is the right way to achieve the objectives that he and I share.

Hugh Bayley: I share with the hon. Gentleman a firm belief that reducing corruption in developing countries would greatly help them to develop economically. He and I have both introduced measures in the House to change the law to help achieve that aim. Nothing whatever in the treaty would undermine that kind of legislation on a national or Europe-wide basis, but the treaty does contain something that might help it happen, which is the provision requiring greater policy coherence. The treaty stipulates:
	"The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries."
	That is a signal to the Union that it ought to have coherent policy across the piece. I would like that to include Europe-wide action to criminalise transnational bribery and to ensure that cases of it are brought before the courts.
	This is not just an academic debate about whether we like the European Union or not. EU aid is immensely important in the fight against global poverty. In 2006, the European Union's own aid budget was about US$10 billion—roughly one tenth of all global aid. A quarter of all the UK's aid—about £1.2 billion of the total for 2006 of £4.2 billion—is channelled through the European Union. I fundamentally disagree with the Conservative party's proposal that our EU aid should be repatriated to the United Kingdom. If we did that, it would send a signal to many other countries with far less a commitment to aid that they could withdraw their contributions to the European Union, with the result that less aid could end up going to developing countries. There is a measure of agreement in the House that EU aid needs further reform, but we would be less likely to achieve that reform if we were to take our bat and ball home and repatriate our resources.
	The International Development Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) in the last Parliament and since, has long taken the view that European Union aid should be guided by the same poverty alleviation principles as are required for UK aid under British law. In 2001-02, the Committee produced a report on European Union development assistance, in which it called for such a commitment to poverty alleviation. In 2006-07, the Committee produced a further report, which acknowledged that some progress had been made. However, it also stated:
	"We strongly welcome DFID's advocacy of an increased focus by the Commission on poverty reduction in low-income countries. The European Council, however, now needs to make good on the commitments it made in the 2005 Consensus on Development to prioritise aid to the poorest countries, and to Africa in particular. We recommend that the Government look at all options available, including withholding funds, to encourage the European Union member states to agree parameters for Commission development activity that allow a dramatic increase in aid going to those who need it."
	That policy is infinitely more likely to become a reality if we have a treaty requiring the European Union to make poverty alleviation one of the primary focuses of its aid policy. We shall see, when Members vote tonight, whether the Conservatives attach greater priority to poverty alleviation as treaty-required aid policy than to their own policy of scepticism and isolation, which would reduce the ability of the United Kingdom to steer European Union aid policy in the direction of poverty alleviation.
	In its examination of development policy in the European Union, the International Development Committee also focuses on other policies, including trade, the common agricultural policy and—I see that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is leaving the Chamber—the policy on combating international bribery. The European Union is a big player, internationally, and it is extremely important to achieve policy coherence. I quoted earlier the treaty provision which requires that. I see that the hon. Gentleman left the Chamber only for an instant, and that he is now back in his place.
	Some Conservative Members have expressed concern about areas in which there is no EU policy coherence; the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) did so earlier. Most notably, he mentioned the common agricultural policy, but I am sure that he would agree that that applies to other areas as well. Is he really willing to give up a treaty requirement on the EU to improve policy coherence to defend the interests of developing countries? If he votes for his amendment tonight, he will give up the opportunity to achieve the sort of policy coherence for which he has just argued from the Dispatch Box. That would be weird, wonderful and bizarre, so I hope that he and other Conservative Members will reflect before they vote tonight. If they are genuine in what they say about supporting our Labour Government's priority on poverty alleviation and the priority that we have given to international development, voting for their amendment tonight would show that their commitment to those objectives is lukewarm and that their commitment to isolationism in Europe is what really fires them up. That is the conclusion that I draw and I believe many people in this country would draw it, too.

Michael Moore: It is a real pleasure and privilege to follow the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). As he has reminded the House and demonstrated, he has a long and proud track record on this particular policy area and has rightly put the key principles of the treaty at the heart of this afternoon's debate.
	I also thank the shadow Secretary of State for his generous welcome to me. I was particularly pleased with his suggestion of consensus and I am certainly happy to do my bit to continue it across the House. I have to say, however, that a large chunk of his speech reminded me of many other debates on European affairs over the years where, as with other aspects of our debate over this particular treaty, there is very little consensus. It was nice to hear the familiar tones of what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I regret that, for reasons that I shall advance as my speech progresses, we will not be able to support his amendment this evening. In particular, we cannot accept the assertion that the treaty is a step backwards in the provision of aid to the developing world. I know, however, that there will be many other areas of agreement and I look forward to further debates.
	In the context of globalisation, Europe faces many difficult, shared challenges, which I believe are fundamentally best responded to on a co-ordinated basis. In the face of the growing pace and sustained nature of those challenges, the Lisbon treaty has to reform Europe's institutions to make them more open, more efficient and effective. We have already debated key areas of consideration in the Bill where that is necessary, but that reform is also crucial to international development.
	Providing development assistance to the millions of people less fortunate than we are is first and foremost a moral and ethical imperative. It is nearly eight years since the UN adopted the millennium development goals, and those ambitious targets have framed the international community's work on development since then. But more than halfway towards our 2015 target, the most recent UN assessment shows that we are a long way from meeting our goals.
	Regardless of Europe's current institutional arrangements, we believe that there are important roles that Europe must play in the delivery of those goals.

John Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that democratic consent is needed for that to be effective? If I were to promise to vote for the referendum he wants on being in or out of Europe, would he promise to vote for the referendum I want on the constitution, which would honour his manifesto pledge?

Michael Moore: The right hon. Gentleman is assiduous in attending these events and I am delighted that he joined us today just before I rose to speak. May I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the article in  The Guardian newspaper by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), my party's leader, which neatly sets out the reasons why we cannot, I am afraid, go along with the right hon. Gentleman's request?
	Despite some movement on poverty—particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, fuelled by the growth of India and China—sub-Saharan Africa remains very far off its key poverty reduction target. The level of extreme poverty in the region has moved from 46 per cent. to about 40 per cent., but it is estimated that given current economic trends, by 2015 360 million people in sub-Saharan Africa will still be living on less than a dollar a day. The moral imperative to improve the way in which we assist the developing world is therefore clear. But development is also fundamentally in our own interests, not least to provide stability in the world and security on these shores, to tackle migration, and to improve trade.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman makes much of the moral and ethical dimension, on which I agree with him entirely in principle. Does he not agree, however—I made this point to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), and I should like to know what the Liberal Democrats think—that poverty cannot be eradicated without proper and efficient mechanisms to deal with corruption in the developing world? It is not possible to remove poverty without removing corruption.

Michael Moore: For once, I am at a loss to find a reason to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think he is absolutely right. His right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) mentioned corruption in the common agricultural policy. We must root out corruption: there should be no place for it in Europe, or in any other area where we are doing business or providing support.
	Regardless of the current institutional arrangements in Europe, the Liberal Democrats believe in the principles of co-operation and multilateralism in international affairs, including international development. Beyond those principles, there are many practical aspects to recognise. As our development partners make clear, they also demand that donors place greater emphasis on cohesion, efficiency and effectiveness. That provides both an opportunity and a series of challenges for the European Union.
	As the world's largest economy, comprising some of the world's richest nations, the EU has a number of obligations: not only to help the development of the extremely poor countries in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, many of which were once part of Europe's empires, but to establish international structures to tackle the causes of poverty, be they conflict, climate catastrophe or, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) suggested, corruption. To a large extent European countries, acting alone or together through the European Union, have accepted those obligations.
	EU members collectively are now the world's largest international donors, accounting for more than half the world's total official development assistance. As is shown by figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Community's development assistance is larger than that of the World Bank, and several times larger than that of the United Nations Development Programme. The EU has played a leading role in the stepping up of the international community's contribution on development. The agreement reached at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in May 2005, when the EU pledged to reach the international target of a contribution of 0.7 per cent. of gross national income to development by 2015, was a milestone. It provided a real impetus ahead of the G8 summit at Gleneagles later in the year, which made impressive commitments to increase aid to Africa by $25 billion per year by 2010, to increase aid to all developing countries by $50 billion per year by 2010, and to cancel 100 per cent. of debts for eligible countries.
	The EU's member states and institutions are central to the delivery of a large part of that agenda. The EU's unique position in bringing together 27 nations offers a unique chance to introduce co-ordination and coherence to development policy across Europe, although the process is not without difficulties. Strenuous efforts have been made in recent years, resulting in the adoption of the European consensus on development in 2005 and that of the European consensus on humanitarian aid, which set out the principles, aims and criteria on the basis of which the EU and all its member states will pursue international development.
	The fact that priority has been given to tackling poverty in the least developed countries represents a breakthrough, and that has now been incorporated in the Lisbon treaty. In its 2007 review, the OECD highlighted the positive reforms of recent years. It has reported:
	"The adoption of the European Consensus has been a major strategic success".
	It has also argued that
	"the community should continue to be a driving force for encouraging progress towards the agreed targets",
	but the EU's current development structure is often complicated and confusing, and it is not short of critics. Indeed, the European institutions have a well-established reputation for bureaucratic complexity.
	The OECD has highlighted the eternal tussle between control and oversight on the one hand and proper authority and appropriate decentralisation on the other. Its most recent report again expresses concern about attempts at micro-management and has recommended that
	"the community should give more say to the delegations in prioritising and applying the thematic programmes in country."
	There are clearly important challenges here.
	Unlike the common foreign and security policy, the Lisbon treaty does not make substantial changes to the Union's development structures, but it does make a key change in refocusing the Union's development policy on the primary objective of the reduction and eradication of poverty. We join the Government and development non-governmental organisations in welcoming that change.

Gary Streeter: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He is experienced in foreign affairs, and he has seen, as have I, a number of examples of poor delivery of EU aid around the world over the years. Therefore, although the treaty's reforms might be laudable in terms of giving it a poverty alleviation focus, does he have any confidence at all that the institutions of delivery within the EU are actually capable of delivering more effective aid in the future than they have been in the past?

Michael Moore: We are in a period of transition. I have not ducked away from the need for Europe to get its act together on development aid, as on so much else: it needs to reform, and it must not regard the treaty as the end of that process. There is always room for improvement in delivery, efficiency and effectiveness. The Liberal Democrats believe that the treaty will provide the European institutions with more tools to do that job, but we should not be slouches in terms of keeping our eye on what happens. Although the hon. Gentleman and I differ on the analysis, he is right to keep focused on delivery.
	The network of NGOs that operate through BOND—British Overseas NGOs for Development—have asked about how development policy will be implemented in terms of the new common foreign and security policy arrangements. While we believe that development policy can be complementary to the Union's foreign policy objectives, foreign policies and development policies have different roles in international affairs, so it is important that the developing world's viewpoints are central to the development of the Union's external agenda. Having a focus on development in the reshaped Commission will be critical, and having a dedicated administrative structure for development will be essential.

Tony Baldry: Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that under this treaty EU aid development policy will become subsumed into the Union's external action plan—in other words, that international development policy will become secondary to foreign policy?

Michael Moore: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but may I pay tribute to him on the expertise that he has shown in this subject over many years? It is clear that poverty alleviation is now central to the treaty, but we will need to keep an eye on how the institutional arrangements are developed. I am sure that a part of that will be to ensure that there is adequate and proper focus on international development in the high representative's new arrangements. It might be more straightforward to convince me on that than the hon. Gentleman; I believe that that is a perfectly appropriate way for things to develop.
	Beyond the treaty and the institutional arrangements, we must ensure that the EU pursues the right development policies. A number of people have raised the issue of the economic partnership agreements, and the case can be made that the EU has not excelled itself in their negotiation. Now that the interim trade agreements have been initialled, the EU must honestly negotiate the comprehensive deals and honour the promises made to revisit provisions of the interim agreements.
	As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) remarked, as we start Fairtrade fortnight it is right that we celebrate the huge progress made on this issue over many years, particularly in the past few. Significant announcements have been made by Tate and Lyle about the future of its UK sugar sales and significant increases have been made in the amount of fair trade produce available in British supermarkets and elsewhere.
	On trade policy more broadly, seven years on, the Doha development round remains stubbornly unresolved. At this year's Davos summit, the World Trade Organisation's director general, Pascal Lamy, shared his optimism that an agreement can be reached this year, but we have heard such statements before. The Doha round seems to be in danger of becoming part of some interminable groundhog day. If it is to be anything but that, the EU must be willing to drive forward an agreement that is genuinely in the interests of the developing world, based on a radical reduction of subsidies and tariffs and on improvements on market access.
	In addition, we must keep the pressure on to ensure that environmental sustainability is a key millennium development goal. The agreement reached at Bali has the potential to address many of the developing world's particular concerns about climate change, and we must all move quickly on technology transfer and adaptation. The EU must also ensure that Bali is only the beginning of a more comprehensive process. As the main player in establishing the Kyoto protocol, the EU must remain at the forefront of securing a successor agreement. It must learn from the experience of Kyoto and use all the tools at its disposal to ensure that the US and others come on board.
	The test of our development policies will be judged in places as diverse as Kosovo, Gaza, Darfur and Sierra Leone. Under a new framework, the EU must ensure the following: a sharp focus on humanitarian assistance; proper policy coherence for development; a continued emphasis on the effective distribution of higher volumes of aid; and better aid implementation and management. Under the Lisbon treaty, it can, and must, make real progress in all those areas.

Judy Mallaber: I think I am the only Member of Parliament whose constituency borders those of two Chief Whips—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) and the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin)—so I take some exception to the way in which the character of my neighbours has been traduced. They are both quite cuddly teddy bears, and I have never felt the slightest bit intimidated by either of them. I would be surprised if people thought that hon. Members are not able to stand up for themselves. I take exception to the remarks, particularly because I have had the experience of seeing at close quarters the Chief Whips for both the main parties in this Chamber.

Andrew Mitchell: I assure the hon. Lady that nothing could so traduce the reputation of a Chief Whip as to be called a cuddly teddy bear.

Judy Mallaber: I had better move on to the substance of the debate.
	I welcome the changes embodied in the treaty because they embed principles of concern to us that are starting to be set out, particularly on poverty eradication. It must be possible for us to work better collectively to ensure that our efforts on aid and all development issues are progressed. Such an approach would be better than countries' sometimes operating individually and not necessarily always co-ordinating. The more co-ordination to make our efforts count, the better. Various figures have been cited showing that the EU is responsible for between 55 and 77 per cent. of world development aid, and I am sure there is no disagreement in the Chamber about the fact that we must take measures to ensure that aid and assistance are given as effectively as possible.
	As has been said, we have done well and the EU has made a major contribution to push forward the agenda. Reference has been made to the commitments that we achieved on the millennium development goals and at Gleneagles on extending aid to Africa. Those commitments are important and we need to build on them. The Opposition have made much of saying that the EU is ineffective and that its delivery does not work. Many examples have been given, but they are not an argument that we should not embed proper principles in the EU's work—the issue is how we make that work operate more effectively, not that we should not go ahead with the treaty, which embeds the principles that we want.
	There has been evidence of improvement in EU policies and their promotion. Every four years, the OECD development assistance committee undertakes a peer review, and its conclusions were different from the rather gloomy picture that we have been given so far. The review commended both the role of the Commission in reshaping development co-operation and the progress made since the previous review four years ago.
	Major independent development policy think-tanks such as the Overseas Development Institute are calling for more development aid to be channelled through Europe. There are clearly different interpretations of what happens, but it appears that progress has been made, so it is essential that we build on it. It is important that we continue to restate the principles that will be embedded in the treaty if it is carried: for example, that the primary objective of development policy is the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty; that humanitarian aid is recognised as a fully fledged Union policy; that the EU's development co-operation policy and the policies of individual member states reinforce each other; that we should be working towards that end; and that development policies should operate independent of political stance. It is vital that we maintain that independence and that we promote all those principles.
	I have seen positive work carried out by the EU. Children from one of the poorer villages in my constituency have been to Burkina Faso, one of the most deprived countries in Africa, to help to dig a well. They have raised money for schools and projects in the country. It was exciting for them to be able to participate in even a minor part of that work. The EU has financed the construction of more than 900 classrooms and more than 300 primary schools and the establishment of canteens in the country's three poorest regions. That is extremely important work.
	The International Development Secretary set out what has been done by the EU and our country to promote democracy and advance in a terribly troubled country—the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I saw that work at close hand when, with other members of the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention, I visited the country to monitor the elections last year. It was a humbling experience and I can testify at first hand how extraordinary it was to see the work being done by the EU and MONUC—the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Soldiers were making sure that the elections were fair, and they transported thousands of tonnes of ballot papers. It was an extraordinary experience to see at close hand so many people taking part in a peaceful registration process and election in an area of such conflict. The EU, DFID and our officials in the country are greatly to be commended for their work.
	Pride can be taken in that achievement; the country is still extremely troubled and progress is difficult, but there is no doubt that the situation is now different. The latest estimate is that in the period of civil war, more than 4.5 million people died as a result of starvation or poverty, or directly from conflict and violence. Interestingly, the last study that was done—I have met its authors, who produced it by analysing what people knew of deaths in different periods—showed some evidence that in the east, the most troubled area, the number of deaths had started to fall. That might have changed again recently, but the fall in the number of deaths presumably occurred because more effort and assistance had been put into that area since the worst of the conflict than into areas that were not so troubled. There is thus hope for the aid process, but there are clearly an amazing number of areas in which a huge amount of work remains to be done.
	Taking the DRC as an example of a country in which the EU should and does play a major role, one of the key issues is the reform of the security sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) pointed out that we want to maintain the independence of the policy aims of our development work, but that work necessarily correlates with work on security, military intervention and protection in conflict zones. Security sector reform is, and will continue to be, a critical issue in the DRC, and the European Union deserves praise for the creation of EUSEC—the EU security sector reform mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I hope that Ministers will ensure, as far as they can, that we maintain the work of EUSEC and do not start withdrawing it in the coming period, when it will continue to be important to work on security sector reform and to maintain a presence in the DRC. Such action will be critical; without it, we might be prevented from ensuring that our development efforts have an impact on the dreadful problems that that country faces, which we need to deal with.
	The EU has also played an important role directly in security in the DRC through the role of EUFOR and the troops that we have there, which helped the MONUC forces to secure the 2006 elections; the work of the EU's special envoy to the great lakes; and the significant role played in the recent Goma peace accords. The EU's role is important and must continue to be important. I want a treaty that embeds further the principles that we want to adopt and makes that work more effective, not one that states that we will withdraw our co-operation.
	Structural reform is important, and points have been made about the possible shortcomings. Although there will be fewer Commissioners in the EU, I hope that we can keep one with direct responsibility for development. I hope that we will pursue that as a Government.
	We had an interesting debate earlier about British Overseas NGOs for Development, and we can all cite different quotations from it. The secretary of our all-party group spoke to BOND earlier today to establish its position. As I understand it, it says that it is not its job to take a position on the treaty itself or on issues such as a referendum. It states that it
	"strongly welcomes the proposed legal framework for development policy with poverty eradication at its heart, and the legally enshrined principle of the coherence of EU policies with development objectives."
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) pointed out what it had said about now being the opportunity to improve the treaty and the development and legal framework. BOND goes on to say that its issue is not with anything in the treaty, but about how its principles will be translated into practice. Any failings in EU policy should mean not that we tear up the good proposals and changes in the treaty, but that we consider how to operate them in practice. Arguments that the EU does not always work properly are not arguments against the treaty as such.

Gary Streeter: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady's thoughtful speech. What is there in the treaty that will make the European institutions deliver aid more effectively? If nothing in the treaty would do so, how does she intend to see that that is brought about?

Judy Mallaber: It is important that the treaty should include at its heart the principle of eradicating poverty, as well as a legally binding statement on the rights of children. Such issues are important. A treaty of itself does not make practice and implementation work; it sets out the framework within which they happen. That should be our aim in the treaty before us.
	At a meeting in January with the all-party parliamentary group, Louis Michel, the EU Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, admitted that there had been problems with the time taken to implement EU programmes. We need to streamline the processes, but there are massive difficulties. There is corruption in countries such as the DRC, and it is not easy to implement policies in a country with only a few hundred miles of paved road. One can meet women there who say, "Our problem is that our children can't go to school until they're old enough to be able to walk the distance to get there."
	There are huge problems, and it is hardly surprising that there are difficulties in implementing programmes. One cannot write into a treaty how to implement policies on such issues. That is not to say that those issues are not important, and it does not take away from what the treaty says, but changes clearly need to be made to the treaty to make it work for a Commission involving more countries. Streamlining is needed; there can be no doubt about that. There are also other issues that we need to take on board. In the DRC, the issue of illegal logging is critical, as are climate change and the sustainability of rain forests and local communities.
	I take exception to one point in the BOND document. BOND is opposed to the creation of a European voluntary humanitarian aid corps, which is a huge shame. I do not understand why. The treaty refers to establishing
	"a framework for joint contributions from young Europeans to...humanitarian aid operations"
	and says that rules and procedures for the operation of the corps will be worked out. BOND has expressed concern about the potential dangers. Obviously, that issue needs to be dealt with, but I have seen so many young people fired with enthusiasm who have had fantastic experiences and learned so much in other countries that I am concerned that BOND has taken that viewpoint. I think that the creation of the corps is a positive item in the treaty, and I support it. For a number of reasons, I support the treaty. I hope that we can take it forward and deal with the issues raised.

Gary Streeter: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). To begin precisely where she ended, the issue with the volunteer corps is that it will be linked with humanitarian situations. As many of us have experienced, the first thing a developing country suffering a crisis wants is for professionals to come in with expertise and specialist skills to try to assist; perhaps the last thing it wants is a group of young people with good intentions who may not have the skills and expertise to be able to help with the situation. Let the EU do things that member states and international non-governmental organisations cannot do—it has a role, of course, as a multilateral aid provider. Gathering together a lot of young people and sending them overseas to increase their experience is a tremendous thing, but it is already being done by many different countries and international NGOs. Why does the EU need to trample on that territory?
	I shall start with a highly controversial statement: I think that the European Union has been incredibly effective in the past 40 or 50 years in providing international development. It has been perhaps the most successful organisation ever in delivering one kind of development. I see looks of horror from certain colleagues, so I shall explain my remarks. If we define development as helping a country to become strong and acquire the rule of law, a market-based economy, a strong civil society, freedom of speech and organisation and an emphasis on human rights—if we define it as raising living standards—it is true that in the past 30 or 40 years, the European Union has been an incredibly effective framework for development in countries such as Spain, Greece, Portugal and the Czech Republic, as well as the Baltic states. In years to come, the impact will be felt in countries such as Romania and Bulgaria, which are already members, and in countries that have yet to enter the European Union.
	The best thing about the European Union is the fact that the most effective form of development is the journey to join it. Countries have to jump the hurdles that we rightly set before them to become members of the European Union. Living standards for individuals in those countries are transformed in five, 10 or 15 years in a way that I have not seen happen anywhere else in the world through any other form of development. I make that point because it is important that the European Union focuses on its core business, and on doing what it does very well. That is why I strongly support enlargement.
	I recognise that from time to time, treaty amendments are needed to enable ever more countries to make decisions in a coherent way. It is a pity that the Lisbon treaty goes well beyond that. I have travelled in the former Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and in countries on the east of Europe, and the only political vision that those countries have is to work their way towards membership of the European Union. That is the journey or underpinning that makes those countries strong. I wonder what Europe would be like today if we did not have the framework of the European Union. I wonder how all those small countries would end up, and whether they would have the momentum for political progression and change, and for improving living standards, if we did not have the framework of the European Union.

William Cash: My hon. Friend might have suspected that I would intervene at this point. When he speaks about European union, does he have in mind the European Union, with all its accumulated functions, as set out in the treaty, which merges all the existing treaties, or does he have in mind—I do not want to tempt him too far down this road—more of an association of nation states, through which we can co-operate to achieve objectives, but without a strict legal framework, which could be counter-productive on international development issues?

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend asks an important question. I certainly have in mind a European Union of looser association. Wider, not deeper; that is my vision for the European Union. That is how we can make the biggest difference to the world.

Hugh Bayley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that EU enlargement has been an important driver for development, but he will agree that there must be some geographic limits on enlargement. The EU has association agreements with countries that it would not accept into membership, including countries in north Africa and the middle east. Surely it is right that the European Union, which has been very good for development in central and eastern Europe, should apply that same expertise and those same strictures further afield, particularly in the poorest countries.

Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my second point, which is that of course enlargement has natural limitations. We can count the number of countries that we know could fit comfortably in the European Union. Of course, enlargement must happen at a pace that the whole enterprise can cope with, but it is membership and the journey towards membership that brings the benefits. My thesis is that when the EU starts to undertake a different kind of development—external development—it does not do it very well. That triggers a debate on whether it should do it at all, in the way that it is trying to do it, or whether external development is better left to member states or other agencies. If I have time, I hope to develop those thoughts.
	Putting aside the great success of enlargement, my observation is that the performance of EU development over the past decade or two has been woeful. We have considered statistics on the performance of the EU. In the three years in which I shadowed the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), then Secretary of State for International Development, there were a number of international humanitarian crises and disasters. On every single occasion, the aid that DFID was able to provide was immediate, proportionate, relevant and helpful, but the assistance that I saw ECHO try to provide was nearly always far too late, was bureaucratic, did not work or did not arrive. There was a huge gap between the assistance that the UK could provide in a humanitarian crisis, and what the EU was able to deliver.
	I do not want to taunt Labour Members, but we used to say that they did not understand the difference between spending money and making an impact on the ground. I am sure that they would deny that that is the case now, if it ever was—Members might have their own observations to make on the subject—but there is a huge difference between the EU spending money on development, aid and assistance and making an impact on the ground. Having visited various parts of the world, I have not seen the impact that the combined dollar spend and the euro spend by the EU should have made. We have heard that the focus is on the wrong countries, and that can be demonstrated with a startling statistic: 81 per cent. of the UK aid budget goes to the lowest-income countries, as we heard earlier, but the proportion of the EU institutions' budget that does so is 32 per cent.
	It is not just that the EU has spent money in the wrong places, but that, as I said, it has tended to spend money slowly and bureaucratically. A number of international NGOs are desperate for finance for projects, and often come to us to discuss those things. Someone may suggest, "Why not apply to the EU for some money?" and the reaction is nearly always: "It's just too complicated. It's too long-winded, we never get there, and it's just not worth it." Interestingly, DFID looked into what was going wrong with EU aid some years ago, and it found out that some of the delays were due to
	"the inner workings of a Byzantine bureaucracy with a procedure-driven ethos."
	A study by the European Commission itself found that 40 per cent. of delays to aid projects were due to
	"the administrative processes of the EU".
	Only 25 per cent. were due to administrative problems in the developing countries that received the aid.
	Some 35 per cent. of aid from all other donors arrived on time, but for the EU, the figure was a miserable 14 per cent. On average, 3 per cent. of aid from all other donors arrived over a year late, but the EU has managed over the past 10 years to hit a staggering figure of 21 per cent. What is the point of DFID giving the EU £1 billion a year if it helps to fund such a bureaucratic, slow and unfocused performance? That is not the only problem. DFID has reported that it spends 5 per cent. of its total budget on administration. The EU has various development budgets and departments—we know that it is complicated—and it has a much larger budget, so the percentage spend on administration should be lower, but in fact, the administrative cost is 8.7 per cent., which is a huge amount of money.
	EU aid is not effective in far too many cases, and it is right to conclude that EU development aid and the institutions that seek to deliver it are often not fit for purpose. That is not to say that everything they do is bad or wrong, but the disadvantages and disbenefits outweigh the benefits. What is the solution? I am not an isolationist—I do not want us to withdraw from active involvement in the European Union—but there is a case for one of two alternatives. It is disappointing that in the run-up to the Lisbon treaty those alternatives were not more actively pursued by the Government. First, there is a case for bringing more of the spend back to the member states so that we can spend it more effectively. We should not spend it on other things, but we can spend it more effectively on bilateral aid, where needed, around the world. The fact that some countries do not have much of a bilateral aid programme does not undermine the general thesis that the United Kingdom and many other countries, including Germany and France, have significant bilateral aid programmes, and the money would be better spent that way than by pushing it through the EU's coffers, where much of it is wasted and misplaced.
	The first point that should have been more actively discussed in the run-up to the Lisbon treaty is that member states should have more control of the way in which that money is spent. Secondly, the Government should consider the fact that the US spends most of its aid money through USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—which is independent. If I am right that the EU institutions and aid departments are not fit for purpose, what is wrong with the prospect of setting up a new EU international aid agency? It should be semi-detached, not lost in the corridors of that astonishing bureaucracy in Brussels, and it should operate as something through which the EU can channel its aid. It would be a multilateral effort, but it would be done in a more effective and focused way.
	I know that the Minister is concerned about some of the EU's decisions on its development budget, so will he say in his winding-up speech how much longer the Government will wait for the EU to improve its performance before taking a more radical approach? The Prime Minister made an important speech in India just before Christmas—it may have been just after Christmas; I am not entirely sure—in which he discussed the importance in the globalising world of the 21st century of multilateral organisations. I agree with him. We are living in a time of interdependence and globalisation, and we need to tackle some of our problems in collaboration with other states and multilateral organisations. He mentioned in particular the UN, the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank. Interestingly, he did not mention the EU. The problem with the multilateral approach is that it works only if those organisations are properly organised and deliver what they intend to deliver. My theory is that the EU does not do so, so it is time for a rethink.
	Finally, the aid agenda is changing rapidly, and rightly so. If one goes to almost any African country and asks people what is the biggest problem in their country, they hardly ever say that it is poverty—they say it is corruption, which at every level is endemic to those societies. There is corruption in government, and corruption throughout civil society. We need to focus more on the democratic capacity of institutions in those countries, and bring to them values and benefits that we enjoy in this country and take for granted. Our aid and development focus should underpin and promote such values in every country that is open to receiving that message. The UK can play an important role by working to develop democratic institutions, whether through the rule of law or by helping political parties to become stronger and make a more coherent case for running their country more appropriately. The work by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and party-to-party work are incredibly important. I remember attending a conference on democracy in Istanbul about two years ago, and the NGOs and some of the bureaucrats seemed to assume that one could do democracy without politicians. We cannot: we need people who are prepared to put their head above the parapet.
	The EU is not well placed to promote democratic values. It certainly cannot promote party politics and underpin the important role that parties and politicians play in the developing world. If I am right that we need a greater focus, not a lesser one, on governance and democratic issues, the EU is not the institution to provide such a focus. It should let the member states spend that money more wisely, or set up a new agency that can do so effectively.

Colin Burgon: In his opening speech, the Secretary of State said that eliminating global poverty was one of the greatest challenges facing the world, and nobody could possibly argue with that. We should look not just at the principles to which people say they are committed, including the eradication of poverty, which no one in the House would oppose, but at how they are carried out in practice. That is the true test of any institution or organisation. In this country we view Europe either as a utopia which represents the most perfect mechanism ever constructed by man or woman, or as an empire of evil. Of course it is neither, but those are the themes that run through the debate. We should try to avoid such thinking.
	We should look at how the philosophy and the principles of the European Union as they relate to aid and trade are implemented. At its root, Europe's approach to trade and aid is incoherent. The treaty states that it aims to improve the coherence of wider EU policies with development objectives and poverty eradication. Who can argue with that? However, in the articles on trade policy, the treaty's apparent favouring of a liberalisation approach over other objectives risks enshrining incoherence at the heart of the treaty. We must examine that.
	My view of the current trend in the EU is probably not the majority view in the House, but we should encourage minority viewpoints at all times. I would argue that the EU Commission is perhaps—the Minister may wish to disagree—the most powerful neo-liberal force in the various world trade organisations which do much to shape the world and the lives of its people. In the most recent world trade talks, it adopted key demands made by corporate pressure groups such as the European Services Forum to force open services markets in poorer countries to multinational companies.
	Despite massive opposition from developing countries, the EC and the ESF got almost everything they wanted into the services text of the Hong Kong World Trade Organisation ministerial decision, which increased pressure on poor countries to open up their markets for basic services such as water, health care and education. Previous episodes of liberalisation in these sectors restricted poor people's access to those essentials.
	The world is dotted with examples of that. It was the EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson, our former comrade, who said:
	"We want to liberalise trade and grow markets in which to sell European goods and services. Multilateral negotiations"—
	in the WTO—
	"offer the biggest prize in achieving this."
	So EU trade policy makers generally share with the massive number of corporate lobbyists who hang about in Brussels the belief that promoting business interests by opening up markets in developing countries will automatically generate economic growth and reduce poverty. Accordingly, Governments actively encourage the corporate sector to help formulate trade policies. As one senior Brussels-based business lobbyist says:
	"There is a broad political consensus. We share a common interest."
	The assumption that trade liberalisation will automatically lead to economic growth and cut poverty in developing countries has become the received wisdom. It was openly stated by our good friend, Trade Commissioner Mandelson, most recently in an article in  The Observer on Sunday 2 February. That argument is advanced despite little convincing empirical evidence that trade liberalisation is associated with subsequent economic growth, and strong evidence that it can have extremely destructive impacts on poorer economies and the lives of poor people there.
	A report from the Commission for Africa, which was set up by Tony Blair, concluded:
	"Forcing poor countries to liberalise through trade agreements is the wrong approach to achieving growth and poverty reduction in Africa and elsewhere."
	The economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the godfathers of free trade theory, were also against rapid trade liberalisation. After a quarter of a century of experimenting with trade liberalisation, poor countries remain locked in a poverty trap, and rich countries continue to push developing countries to liberalise trade through global institutions such as the WTO. The EU plays a key role in that process.
	The Lisbon treaty makes international trade an exclusive competence of the EU and includes foreign direct trade in a common commercial policy. It reduces the power of the member states over trade. Article 188 of the new treaty retains a special committee of officials from EU member states which is currently known as the article 133 committee. The House will be pleased to hear that I shall not elaborate on that, as I covered it extensively in a previous debate.
	Economic partnership agreements are the instruments through which the neo-liberal policy of Commissioner Mandelson is pursued. To his credit, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), has expressed reservations about the effect of economic policy agreements. A briefing from the Trade Justice Movement explains what those agreements mean, and it is worth putting that on the record. I shall highlight three elements.
	First, EPAs require countries to liberalise tariffs on the vast majority of products, with exclusions only in exceptional cases. That would open up markets in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to the EU's subsidised agricultural products and more competitive manufactured products, undermining the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and the promotion of value-added production. Secondly, EPAs introduce new regulations on services, competition and Government procurement that would make it extremely difficult for ACP countries to support local companies, create new jobs and grow their economies. Thirdly, EPAs introduce stricter rules on intellectual property that would make it more difficult to access and afford educational materials on the internet.

William Cash: I find myself in agreement with much of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I agreed up to a point with the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), but what the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) is saying about economic partnership agreements is right and reflects the views of 19th century reformers who were anxious to achieve a balance between free trade and the proper care of the people who would be affected—hence, the corn laws. He may be interested to know that his constituency is the area where my family came from, and that Samuel Smiles and John Bright, both of whom would have strongly approved of what he said, were advocates of the policy that he promotes.

Colin Burgon: I shall probably have a midnight visit from the Whips, now that I have secured the hon. Gentleman's support. On a serious note, I welcome the many contributions that he makes. The subject of our debate is important and he makes some significant points.
	What are the effects of EPAs? I shall give three examples. Studies for Kenya's Ministry of Trade, the International Monetary Fund and the EC indicate that under a proposed EPA, Kenya could lose up to 65 per cent. of its industry, 12 per cent. of its Government revenue and millions of rural livelihoods. As a further example from another country, Traidcraft reported that Jamaica's dairy market liberalisation decimated small farmers, left local milk production with barely one tenth of the market in Jamaica and led to the EU supplying two thirds of the island's milk powder.

Tony Baldry: What does the treaty of Lisbon have to do with EPAs?

Colin Burgon: The treaty effectively adopts a neo-liberal approach to its relationships with other countries; that is what it has to do with them.
	I pray in aid Christian Aid, which has talked about the liberalisation of the tomato trade in Senegal, although that may be a subject of small importance to us. It showed that local prices halved while imports of EU paste increased twentyfold. We must be clear. As many fair trade organisations have pointed out, we must understand that the Lisbon treaty increases the powers of the unelected Trade Commissioner. I do not have a great deal of faith in that post as it is currently filled—nor, probably, will I have faith in it as it will be filled in future. Given the absence of any transparency or accountability in the EU's trade decisions, hopes that the European Parliament will be able to challenge that increased power are effectively a pipe dream.
	To come back to my central point, a few other hon. Members and I believe that the whole way in which the neo-liberal agenda relates to poorer countries must be challenged, because it involves a pernicious and harmful set of policies that will harm not only working people in Europe, but those in poorer countries across the world. Commissioner Mandelson's global statements on Europe and on how he wishes to fashion it in future are bad news for us and certainly for the millions of our constituents who are so committed to fair trade policies, which EU policies—as currently designated and given where they are heading—will overturn.

Tony Baldry: There is no real debate or division in the House about the fact that 27 member states working together on international development will often be much more effective than 27 individual countries pursuing their own policies. Very often, however, the frustration with European development policy is that it has not delivered on its promises. That frustration was well summarised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), when she was Secretary of State for International Development. She labelled the European Commission
	"the worst development agency in the world",
	and went on to say:
	"If we could drive forward a really coherent committed development agenda throughout the Commission it could be a fantastically powerful force for good".
	Today we are debating the treaty of Lisbon. The contribution by the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) summarised why we have all been cheated in this debate. We have not had a public referendum or a proper public discussion. This is it: today is it as far as international development in respect of the treaty of Lisbon is concerned. He talked a lot about EPAs, although as far as I am aware they are not particularly mentioned in the treaty. As he acknowledged, he mentioned them because he opposes the whole thrust of EU trade policy. I am not sure whether he has caught on to Tony Blair's third way, but that is a matter for him and the Labour party—it is a problem for the Labour Chief Whip, not for us. We all have our crosses to bear.
	The hon. Gentleman's position demonstrates that it would have been much better if we had had a proper national public debate on the treaty. Large numbers of people involved in development-related NGOs would like to have got involved in that. We have heard BOND prayed in aid so often because, I suspect, the Foreign Secretary sought to enlist all those development NGOs as supporters of the treaty and they, not unreasonably, resented that. They wrote and made that clear. ActionAid said that
	"it would be premature to conclude that the Treaty is going to deliver the changes needed to improve European development policy".
	It went on to say that it has
	"reservations on the Treaty's discussion of trade, and particularly on the proposed extension of the Commission's competency to cover services, investment and intellectual property".
	Save the Children expressed concerns about the
	"omission of the principle of independence in the chapter on humanitarian aid, and the proposal to create a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps",
	and Oxfam said that there were a number of caveats and concerns about the treaty that it and other development NGOs had raised.
	Today, we have had no real opportunity to probe those concerns; a single sitting of a Select Committee provides more opportunity to probe people's concerns. This debate is a set-piece bit of theatre, in which many of the contributions, interesting though they have been, have not been about the treaty but about European co-operation and international development as a whole.
	I should like to focus on four issues that the Government sought to lobby against and oppose during the negotiations. The first is that the treaty allows EU aid to become subsumed within the EU's external action policy. Significant and important development values could become diluted and taken over by the foreign policy agenda. I was fortunate enough to be a junior Foreign Office Minister when the Overseas Development Administration was part of the Foreign Office. I was Baroness Chalker's spokesman in this House, so I have lived through a time when international development was subsumed within foreign policy. I have to tell the Secretary of State that foreign policy prevailed; it will prevail even more, I suspect, as the European Union moves increasingly towards a common position on foreign policy.
	Clearly, the Government were uncomfortable about that and they opposed it in the Lisbon negotiations. However, today we have heard little account of why and why Ministers were satisfied with the outcome. I bet a penny to a pound that in the next few years there will be times when UK Secretaries of State for International Development will be frustrated that international development policy is being subsumed by the external action plan—effectively, the foreign policy—of the European Union.

Kelvin Hopkins: What the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will get even worse than it is now. Is it not the case that European international development policy is geared towards the better-off Francophone states on the fringes of the Mediterranean, rather than towards sub-Saharan African or other very poor countries? Will that situation not get worse?

Tony Baldry: The hon. Gentleman takes me neatly to the second of my four points. Everyone who has spoken has rightly said that the treaty refers to pro-poor policies; actually, it would be staggering if it did not. However, the treaty has an inherent contradiction, in that it removes reference to "the most disadvantaged". As it happens, a very substantial proportion of EU development aid goes to middle-income countries, many in what is euphemistically known as the Maghreb. That is not a development policy, but a policy through which countries such as Spain, Greece and others—understandably, within their own terms of reference—try to improve the situation in middle-income countries such as Egypt, Morocco and others in north Africa in the hope that that will prevent more migrants from coming from those countries to mainland Europe. That policy is not one of development. I suggest that the removal of the reference to "the most disadvantaged" will mean that more money will be given to middle-income countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) said, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), made exactly that point in an effective speech a couple of years ago—far too much money is being given to middle-income countries. So why were the Government content about that phrase being removed?
	The treaty provides for the creation of a voluntary humanitarian aid corps. That, too, was opposed by the Government in negotiations. It is the sort of thing that sounds like a good idea, but when one gets down to the practicalities—how it is to be funded, how it is to be supervised, where it is to go, and in what circumstances it will operate—it is clear that it will be a distraction from the work of some already very professional NGOs or will give Governments who should be committing resources for humanitarian intervention an excuse to say, "Well, we will just fund the voluntary humanitarian aid corps." Whatever the position, we know that the Government opposed that during the negotiations, and no explanation has been given today as to why that was the case and why Ministers are now happy to sign up to a voluntary humanitarian aid corps.
	The treaty provides for an extension of qualified majority voting to urgent macro financial and humanitarian aid, which removes the UK's veto on these matters. Again, the Government opposed that in negotiations. There must have been some good reason why they opposed what is clearly a reasonably technical provision. People at UKRep, DFID and the Foreign Office must have felt that there had been occasions in the past when they would have been in difficulties if the provision had prevailed and they could foresee situations in future when they would be in similar difficulties. Why on earth was that not discussed or explained to the House?
	We have had no explanation on any of the issues where the Government sought to oppose the treaty of Lisbon in the negotiations in which the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) and others were involved. Ministers have not come to the Dispatch Box to say, for example, "We opposed the voluntary humanitarian aid corps in negotiations on the treaty but we got the following assurances, undertakings and promises, so we now feel that we can sign up." What we got from the Secretary of State today was a thoughtful, elegant "motherhood and apple pie" speech about why international development is good for us. We all know that international development is good for us—we are not here to debate that but to debate how the treaty of Lisbon affects our relationship with the European Union as regards international development. However, we have not had that debate.

William Cash: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says, but I invite him to consider another point. The debate is not only about our relationship with the European Union but our own domestic law. The object of the exercise is that the Lisbon treaty, by virtue of the Bill, will be implemented into UK law. In many respects, what we are discussing is now to be termed an exclusive competence, which means that we will be excluded from legislating in that field. I am sure that he understands that.

Tony Baldry: Yes, I do. However, all treaties, whether the Single European Act, Maastricht or Amsterdam, have had a similar effect on the provisions that they have dealt with, and that is why it is important to have a sensible debate about the exact provisions and how they apply.
	The other thing that we have not had a proper debate about is what the treaty does to improve the efficiency of EU aid. The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) mentioned two International Development Committee reports, one of which was done when I chaired the Committee and the other during this Parliament, which raised considerable questions about the efficiency of EU aid. The fact that EU aid is not always completely efficient is not a reason for not having it, but we need to know how the treaty will make its delivery more efficient. I do not think, in all fairness, that we have heard from the Treasury Bench a single instance of where it is believed that the provisions of the treaty of Lisbon will make the delivery of international development through the EU more effective and efficient or give better value for money.
	This has been a total non-debate, and the whole process merely adds to the general democratic deficit. I say that as an ardent pro-European, as everyone in the House knows. I campaign for Britain in Europe, and I will continue to do so. However, the way in which we have conducted this whole process leads to huge numbers of people—our constituents—feeling that they have been cheated out of a proper public debate. We have not had a debate on the ramifications of the treaty of Lisbon as it relates to international development, and that is very sad. This has been a fraud of a debate, and for that reason I will join my hon. Friends in the Lobby in support of their amendment.

David Heathcoat-Amory: We are debating what is supposed to be a reform treaty—that is what it was called before it became the treaty of Lisbon—and no area is more ripe for reform than the policies connected with international development and aid. The aid budget is part of the general EU budget, which is, as the House knows very well by now, a byword for inefficiency, mismanagement and waste. It has been subject to qualification by the auditors for 12 years in a row. No private sector organisation would have survived that. If the EU were a private company it would long ago have collapsed or been taken over, and the directors would have been sacked or in prison. If this really were a reform process, it would have tackled the lack of accountability and poor management at the heart of the European Union in its budget.
	We know that the Government share those misgivings, particularly on the aid side. The European Scrutiny Committee receives reports on the EU programme, and on one occasion last year it was, in its measured and diplomatic way, very critical of EU procedures. I will quote, almost at random:
	"in general, evaluations point to long delays in implementation and highlight the rigidity and slowness of Commission procedures".
	Many hon. Members who have been more intimately connected with the Department know full well that there is something seriously wrong with the delivery of aid at EU level.
	No reform was carried out, and instead the treaty centralises more powers. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who described the process of capture in relation to the Foreign Office provisions of the treaty. The Government need to explain why, when this country has moved its aid programme away from the Foreign Office, the treaty moves in exactly the opposite direction. That need not have been done; it is a result of last year's secretive negotiation process. The Government would have got support from the House in opposing this if we had known about it, but the critical decisions were made in secret by officials in the early part of last year. The treaty text was then presented to member states only two days before the European summit in June, at which it was all politically decided.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury is right about the politicisation of aid that will result from this, which is bound to undermine historical and traditional British priorities about aid and where it should go.

Gareth Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that the treaty represents a significant step forward in terms of development co-operation, in that it enshrines the fact that the primary purpose of EC development spending should be fighting poverty?

David Heathcoat-Amory: No, I am afraid I cannot agree to that. The existing Maastricht treaty text specifies
	"more particularly the most disadvantaged among them"—
	a reference to developing countries, and where aid should go. The explicit intention was to direct aid to the poorest countries in the world. That article was repealed by the Lisbon treaty, and it was not replaced by similar wording about the direction of the aid budget. I am afraid I do not agree with the Under-Secretary.
	Indeed, the treaty reinforces the move towards expenditure on things such as the neighbourhood policy. There are obviously deserving countries on the borders of Europe, but they are by no means the poorest countries in the world. It is not clear to me why we should distort the British aid programme, in ways of which I know the Government disapprove, by swinging it away from the poorest countries to those politically important to the EU.
	Running right the way through this treaty is a sort of "little European" attitude, which sees everything through the prism of continental Europe. That is completely out of cue with our historic and traditional concerns and responsibilities, which are global. Our horizons are much wider. It has been alleged in a puerile way that we in my party are somehow isolationist. Quite the reverse: we are the true internationalists. We believe that our responsibilities go much wider than Europe. Of course we are concerned with continental Europe. This country has often gone to war in the past to stop the continent falling under the domination of a single power. But we are also a maritime, global country with historic responsibilities that go much wider. That state of affairs will be undermined and distorted by this treaty.
	The other aspect of international development is trade. Trade has an enormous ability to lift countries out of poverty, and many studies have shown that even quite modest increases in trade flow have a much more benign effect on the lifting of countries out of poverty than even the most generous aid programmes. Trade rewards efficiency, and it creates a self-sustaining mechanism for economic lift-off. Many countries, such as South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, have followed that path. Aid, by contrast, reinforces dependency and invites corruption.
	I am a trade liberaliser; liberalisation is very important, as was recognised in the millennium goals of eight years ago. Tragically, not enough has been done since then to liberalise trade. The Doha round has stalled. The additional tragedy is that we are trapped; there is nothing that this country can do. We are quite unable to do anything on our own, and we do not have a trade policy. Hon. Members might remember that we used to have a Board of Trade. It does not exist any more. There is no expertise in this country; very few officials and practically no Ministers engage in trade policy at all, because we have handed over trade policy to our ex-colleague Peter Mandelson. He twice left the British Cabinet in disagreeable circumstances, and is now in an unelected body that meets in secret, which has a monopoly on trade policy. It is he who decides, not us.
	The reason for that is the fact that we are stuck in an old-fashioned customs union. The rest of the world has gone in the completely different direction of creating free trade agreements. That is the modern way; that is what more prosperous parts of the world have done. They have not created customs unions where everything is concentrated in an over-regulatory centralised system. They have created free trade areas that enable individual members to do bilateral deals and make agreements with other countries, including poor countries. We are unable to do that. Instead, we have the prospect of the European Commission bullying poor countries by trying to impose agreements on them that they often feel they do not want.
	I believe in free trade, but it is not an ideology. It must be entered into only on terms acceptable to the countries concerned. If we had more freedom, as the fifth largest economy in the world, to help those poor countries and the poor people in them, we could do something to help them before the Doha round is brought into effect. But we cannot do that, because of the complete inability of the European Union to think in any other way than centralisation or the reinforcement of the customs union, which is practically unique in the world. It is not a model that has been followed elsewhere.
	That argument was never examined during the so-called reform process that started in 2001. There was a fanatical resistance to any diminution in the powers of the central organisations.

William Cash: I agree with every word my right hon. Friend is saying. Does he recollect that one of the problems was when President Sarkozy put his foot down and took the words "undistorted competition" out of the treaty? That wording could conceivably—although I doubt it in practice—have provided the sort of free trade that my right hon. Friend and I agree about. In fact, it is more likely, particularly given French influence in Africa, that there will be more protectionism, working exactly against the interests of the people whom we want to protect and want to see prosper.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those dangers are real, and he is also right to say that we gave way far too readily to the French preoccupation with protectionism and the lack of competition. All the way through the Convention on the Future of Europe, we sustained defeat after defeat. For instance, at present we have a residual ability to sign international agreements bilaterally, particularly in the area of intellectual property and services. That ability is removed by the treaty. Indeed, the whole common commercial policy, which will include those areas, becomes an area of exclusive competence for the first time. That means that member states are literally forbidden to legislate in that area or to conclude any agreements with outside countries. Also included, and again the Government did not want this, is foreign direct investment—a huge area that will be transferred from national control to the EU. Again, the Government tabled amendments and argued against that notion all the way through the Convention, and again they lost.
	My other point on trade is that at the very least we should know what is going on, but we do not. I have tried many times to find out what is really happening in the EU Commission and Council with regard to the negotiations in question. In a parliamentary question a year or two ago, I asked for the details of the EC anti-dumping and anti-subsidy advisory committee. It was an important question, because the committee was imposing emergency tariffs on shoes to the detriment of companies in my constituency. I was told in the reply:
	"The minutes of the Advisory Committee are not available to the public."—[ Official Report, 3 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 857W.]
	The article 133 committee decides the details of trade matters. Again, I asked to see the minutes, and I was told that it meets weekly, that there are no formal minutes, but that it does publish outcomes. I got a copy of the outcomes, and for greater accuracy, I have brought a copy with me this evening. It is not helpful because everything has been deleted. The document details the outcome of a meeting of 17 February 2006, and everything of any interest has been deleted: there are 16 deletions. I want to know what is going on in those negotiations. There is a reference to aluminium being discussed, but that has been deleted, too. I do not know what they were saying about aluminium, but it might have been interesting. It says at the end:
	"Over lunch the Committee discussed the following items...the Aid for Trade Task Force...and information by Denmark on the issue of cartoons."
	No other information is given. The committee obviously had a good lunch, but it does not tell us what was discussed, who said what, who decided what, who voted, or even whether there were any votes.
	Not only is that whole area of policy secretive and in conflict with British aims, but we know that the Government did not want it at the time. The House should not accept it now.

William Cash: I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has said. It is absolutely extraordinary that we are here and the House is virtually empty. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) pops in every now and again like a little gadfly, and he occasionally speaks up. I wish that he would contribute to this debate, because I am sure that he has a great interest in such matters. He told us on the radio the other day that while I was droning on, as he put it, he had taken an approach of Lenten abstinence in these debates. Considering the fact that he has intervened on a number of occasions, I would be grateful if he would take the opportunity to do so today.

Denis MacShane: rose—

William Cash: I am glad that I have managed to get a rise out of the right hon. Gentleman.

Denis MacShane: I would rather not intervene.

William Cash: I agree, as a matter of fact.
	The problem is that this is an issue of enormous importance. I do not want to give the impression, any more than my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells does, that the Conservatives are not genuinely interested in the developing world and third-world problems. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who is now in the Chamber, knows that I, and other Conservative Back-Bench Members, dedicate a great deal of our time to trying to deal with these questions.
	The Secretary of State was kind enough to refer to my work on the all-party group on water and sanitation in the third world, of which I have the honour to be chairman. An early-day motion on that subject was signed by 250 Members of Parliament, while 310 supported my early-day motion on the reduction of third-world debt. Why? There is all-party recognition that the subject is incredibly important. It is utterly unacceptable that people should die needlessly in developing countries. It is appalling and disgraceful that a child dies every 15 seconds for lack of proper water. That is unacceptable, and it is essential that the Opposition, as well as the Government and the Liberal Democrats, should fight to ensure that we have policies that work.
	Against that background, I am deeply worried about the manner in which the EU functions on aid. Irrespective of our belief that help and the eradication of poverty should remain at the heart of our policy making, the EU is not the mechanism for achieving that. All the evidence points in the other direction. We heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells eloquently express the fact that the documents that he elicited were left blank. We know that the European Court of Auditors has issued a number of reports over an extended period to demonstrate that the way in which EU aid is delivered is not good enough.
	We know that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), when she was Secretary of State for International Development, was deeply critical of the way in which the EU functioned in relation to her responsibilities. I do not believe that what she said at that time had anything to do with the Iraq war. It was just an objective assessment of how she saw the operation being conducted under the aegis of the EU.
	Why would I be concerned about the specific obligations imposed under the treaty? For example, as I said in an earlier intervention, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells mentioned, the fact that the treaty arrangements provide for exclusive competence in this field is a retrograde step. Exclusive competence, for those who have the faintest idea about the EU—not for those who pretend that they do not know, allow these processes to continue and then pretend that our Parliament and our Government have some residual ability to legislate—means that states cannot legislate in that field. It means that the ability of this House and its better means of delivering the objectives that we all seem to share—with the proviso that we, for our part, would like to exclude exclusive competence, as the Government intended—are contracted out.
	I wish that some Members of this House would be honest enough to realise that they are effectively conning the British people when they pretend that they are improving the lot of people in the third world, when this exclusive competence will mean that we will no longer be able to make provision to help the people whom we all agree need help.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does it not follow from what he is saying that if the EU gains exclusive competence in this area, because it has a long-standing history of being very bad at spending aid, particularly on the less developed countries, and because the treaty does nothing to improve that, there is a danger that less aid will go to the very poor countries in future?

William Cash: I agree. It is pretty extraordinary to hear the Government advocating a policy—we certainly are not advocating it—of more EU competence in this field. That is because—it is necessary to be blunt and direct about such matters, even if at times that is controversial and unpopular—some of the countries that are part of the EU have the most appalling record of behaviour in African countries. I would like to know, for example, whether the involvement of Belgium in Congo would be regarded as one of the great aspects of humanitarian aid and help to the people of Africa during the 19th century.
	I do not think that we are without blemish but I will say emphatically that we created and helped a lot of those countries through education, infrastructure and development over an extended period, including in the old colonial territories. That work far exceeds anything that President Mugabe has done for his country. He has brought the whole edifice of Zimbabwe to its knees. I believe that the EU will not be able to provide the opportunities and facilities that will genuinely help the countries that need it most.
	Africa is approaching a crisis. There are serious difficulties in South Africa and serious problems with AIDS. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), with whom I have worked closely over an extended period, the difficulties of eradicating poverty are made 1,000 times worse by the inability to deal with the problems of corruption. They cannot be separated.
	The Court of Auditors has often rejected the way in which the European accounts have been operating. Nothing in its reports suggests that it should have an exclusive competence over handling international aid in Africa. It is not best placed to secure proper anti-corruption policies such as those advocated in the Bill that I proposed last year, or many of the Department's recommendations, which, on the whole, pointed in the right direction. I do not agree with everything that the Department has done and I do not believe that it has gone nearly far enough, but we have an absolute responsibility to bring forth the problems of transparency and accountability in our debates. I am not convinced that the European Union will do anything to improve the position.
	The treaty does not refer to corruption. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, it contains much motherhood and apple pie, but there is no evidence that it will deal with the seriously ingrained problem of corruption, which is endemic in much of the third world. We have a responsibility to our taxpayers because the aid money paid to the European Union through tax mechanisms, and thereby from the European Union to the developing world, is our taxpayers' money. We must ensure that it is used properly.
	My hon. Friends and I are determined to improve the lot of people who live in appalling conditions. The way in which some people in the third world live is a form of modern slavery. It is inconceivable to us, sitting in the House of Commons, that people should live on such limited resources. That is mostly unnecessary and happens because there is no proper control. I strongly condemn the idea of transferring more and more functions to the European Union when we have a track record and our Government have tried, albeit not entirely successfully, to tackle those matters. I had a great deal of time for the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), the Secretary of State's predecessor, who is now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He worked incredibly hard and was truly dedicated. I say the same of the Under-Secretary, because I know that he wants to make things better. I simply do not believe that the European Union is the right way to go.
	Leaving aside questions of aid and development, the infrastructure in developing countries can be improved only if they have the finances and resources to achieve that, as well as the expertise that goes alongside. The way in which the whole operation is currently conducted, including the enormous debts that those countries have been encouraged to incur and the amount of interest that they have had to repay, simply has not left them with enough money to invest in infrastructure. There is a new 1980s and 1990s generation of people in Africa and the rest of the third world who understand the problems that their countries face. They want genuine improvements, and I believe that the answer lies in proper free trading arrangements. I am appalled by the failure of the Doha round. The customs union and the way in which protectionism operates in Europe are detrimental to the third world, and I strongly believe that the powers should be repatriated.

Mike Hancock: I have more than a little sympathy for the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who tried to deal with the chapters in the treaty that we hoped to discuss this afternoon. Chapter 3 on humanitarian aid and the previous two pages spell out many of the issues that have been mentioned. He was right to say that no one who has participated in the debate has any doubts about the House's commitment to development, to helping eradicate poverty, to developing, when possible, initiatives that relate to aid and to ensuring that we get better value for money.
	However, there are some serious questions about the chapter on humanitarian aid. I intervened earlier to mention a recent visit that the Under-Secretary made to Bangladesh, followed by a visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) and me a few days later. We visited what are undoubtedly some of the poorest parts of the world. I pay tribute to the Department's work there and I cannot give it more praise than to say that it is a credit to our nation. The European Union could do worse than take some lessons from the Department about the way in which it operates.
	The Secretary of State spoke in his opening remarks about his visit to Sierra Leone and his journey through Freetown, where he saw many signs, which showed who was working there. He said that he wanted to see fewer—I pay tribute to the proper English of my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who put us all right earlier—signs but greater co-ordination. Many hon. Members who have spoken are experts and know that, when travelling around, one witnesses the failure of co-ordination in many countries. I am at a loss to find anything in chapter 3 to suggest that things will be better co-ordinated.
	I am with hon. Members who are worried about corruption and the amount of it that affects European aid. I have witnessed European work on numerous occasions in many parts of the world, including Kosova. Anyone who believes that European aid in Kosova has not been corrupted has not seen the real Kosova. Tens of millions of pounds have been misappropriated in Kosova over the years and it is a travesty to suggest that that has not happened.
	I want the Government to assure the House that the treaty will not seriously impede the legitimate aims of the House and our country of following the same pattern of humanitarian aid that we have followed in the past 40 years. I want the Government to assure us that we remain committed to supporting those countries that have traditionally been the UK's allies and looked to us for a lead. I want to be sure that that commitment will not be diluted and I want the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretaries to give us a full-blooded commitment that the treaty and the suggested amendments to it will not do the opposite of what everyone who has spoken wishes. I wanted the way in which the treaty can be of greater benefit to the humanitarian needs of the world to be spelled out line by line.

William Cash: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have a serious problem? We all want things to happen to improve the lot of people in the third world, but is not it extraordinary that the Government, for reasons of state, continue to promote a treaty, in which they clearly did not believe in respect of international aid in their negotiations?

Mike Hancock: That is a good point. There has been ample opportunity to explain that this afternoon. The Secretary of State was generous in giving way and sought to clarify the point, but it is so serious that I hope that we get further clarification in the Under-Secretary's winding-up speech. I hope that the Minister will not be reluctant to expose the House to his thoughts on that issue. As others have said, the hon. Gentleman is right, yet again, to push it.
	I also have some difficulty with what the Opposition spokesman said. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) smiles, but I was not being critical; I was trying to offer some assistance, because the Conservatives were so critical of the idea of a volunteer corps. I have had the privilege of writing a report for the Council of Europe on the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. We saw at first hand in Bangladesh how the volunteer corps, whose members had been properly trained by the Red Crescent, proved invaluable in being available on the spot. The International Committee of the Red Cross has said time and again that if every country bothered to train a volunteer corps that could be co-ordinated properly, a lot of the problems that are encountered initially could be sorted out far quicker, without having to wait for aid to come from elsewhere. Setting up a volunteer corps, based on the sound principles of training and proper co-ordination, should therefore not be so easily dismissed.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman referred to chapter 3, on humanitarian aid. He will therefore be aware that article 214.5, on page 137 of the consolidated texts, says:
	"The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall determine the rules and procedures for the operation of the Corps."
	That framework of rules and procedures could do the very thing that he wants, which is to ensure that ill-informed and unprofessional volunteers do not participate. Indeed, quite the reverse: the treaty could professionalise the work and lead to further help across the world.

Mike Hancock: That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. The hon. Gentleman has made it far more eloquently than me and I am grateful for his intervention. The disappointment from our side arose from what the Opposition spokesman said on the matter. I want to see that co-ordination and I want to see a volunteer corps established, properly trained, properly funded and properly dealt with.
	As the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, it was all too apparent that people had used the BOND letter to suit their own purposes. It was unfortunate to say the least that expressions of support from some world-renowned organisations, such as Oxfam, Christian Aid and others, were written into statements by the Foreign Secretary in such a way as to imply their absolute support with no reservations, when the letter clearly established that they had more than a few reservations about what was happening. It is only fair that we should give organisations an opportunity to have the record put straight. I welcome the comments of hon. Members who have attempted to do that, but I accept the fair point that the hon. Gentleman made, which is that other people had been very selective. That was a fair point, but we have to take the letter in its totality. We have to accept that there was good and bad in it, and we cannot see it in any other way.
	I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) wants to get in, so I end by thanking the Oxfam project team in Bangladesh, particularly Jahan Rume for the tremendous work that she does on behalf of Oxfam, ably supported and properly co-ordinated as she is, as well as our team, led by Chris Austin and others from DFID, which has worked wondrously hard to pool all the efforts. It is a great credit to us that the people of Bangladesh are so grateful for the way that we have responded to their needs. However, it beggars belief that DFID should have to pay the Ministry of Defence out of its own funds for second-hand, out-of-service boats from the Royal Navy, so that it can provide inshore craft.
	My final message to the Secretary of State is this: the people in the cyclone areas of Bangladesh that we visited said that they did not want more food, more money or more handouts. What they wanted was good technical help, so that they can get back to work. Their work is fishing. What they need is new nets and new boats—not a boat each, but boats that co-operatives can run, and £700 for a boat and a net that can harness the resources for 10 families is not a big price to pay. DFID and others, including the Prime Minister, should look into what they can do to give more of that aid to the people in that country.

Ann McKechin: I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) for his courtesy. I also apologise to the House for my unavoidable absence for part of the debate.
	It is fair to say that this debate has been characterised by an argument about bilateralism versus multilateralism. I would like to argue the case for a multilateral approach. The European Union has a unique strength, given its ability to look at the full range of issues that impinge on development, not only in its direct humanitarian work, but in promoting European values, such as human rights, equality, democracy and freedom. The European Union has the ability to look not only at aid, but at trade, foreign affairs and security, all of which, most of us would agree, have a major impact on development. That is why I particularly welcome the formal recognition in the new treaty that the primary objective of EU development policy should be the reduction and eradication of poverty in the context of the millennium development goals.
	In many parts of the world, the formal distinctions between security, foreign and development policy are increasingly no longer relevant. When we interact with fragile states, the ability to offer a comprehensive range of interlinked policies becomes even more crucial. In the periods immediately after conflict, which we are witnessing in countries such as Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it is all the more important that we should act together. A good example of that is the European Union's security sector reform programme, which is operating in the DRC and Burundi. Indeed, the EU is the only meaningful body promoting such co-ordination and is the source of one of the very few effective security sector reforms in the entire region, which includes a mechanism to ensure soldiers' pay.
	Questions have been raised recently about Belgium's agreement of a military aid package with the DRC Government, but purely on a bilateral basis. That should be a cause for concern. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees that it is of the utmost importance that all EU members should work within the EU security reform processes to ensure that the difficult issues of conflict and corruption in the DRC can be tackled in the most effective way.
	Although there have undoubtedly been problems with European programmes in the past, the biggest structural problem that faces the global aid community today is that the aid structure is running out of control. In the 1960s, most poor nations had an average of about 12 bilateral or multilateral donors. Now the average is 33. In just one year Tanzania, for example, had to receive more than 540 separate aid donor missions. Uganda has more than 40 donors and 684 different aid instruments, while St. Vincent, with a population of 117,000, was asked to monitor 191 indicators on HIV/AIDS alone. The list goes on, but only a quarter of global aid currently comes through multilateral bodies such as the EU. Despite the ever increasing number of donors, however, programmable aid has largely stagnated since 2002. We simply cannot go on in this manner, with such huge levels of bureaucracy holding least developed countries down, in their attempt to achieve the millennium development goals.
	If we agree that aid budgets throughout Europe should increase to the target of 0.07 per cent. of gross domestic product, we need to do more to achieve effective harmonisation and alignment of aid policies. We simply cannot ignore the European Union's role, and we cannot even more ridiculously call for it to do less or for all the money to be transferred into our bilateral programme. The EU is the world's largest donor—more than 55 per cent. of world aid comes from Europe—and its influence will grow as new accession states start to form their own development capacities. We therefore have a global presence that we can work with, and the only logical approach is to work for appropriate reform and to achieve a high level of policy alignment.
	I welcome the fact that the treaty accepts that, for the first time, humanitarian aid is to be allocated only on the basis of need, without consideration of the recipients' origins or beliefs. It also states that non-aid policies should do no harm and, wherever possible, should support progress towards development goals. Particularly importantly in relation to trade—given that the treaty states that the principles of the commercial policy of the EU are based firmly on trade liberalisation, and makes no specific mention of the need for that to be linked to a pro-development focus—I would argue that we should treat the no-harm principle for non-aid policies as a minimum, and not as the limit of our ambitions for European development.
	Our experience in the European Union with the World Trade Organisation negotiations and the economic partnership agreements shows that it is vital to preserve and strengthen a development focus in our trade work. I would contrast the position here in the UK—where the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform shares my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) with the Department for International Development as a development Minister, and where we have a long-standing policy on the adverse effect of failing to sequence trade liberalisation reforms to allow domestic capacity to grow—with that of the European Union, which has often fallen back on protectionist arguments. That is why I would argue that the UK should be pressing heavily, as part of the Lisbon treaty, for a separate Development Commissioner who has equal status to that of the Trade Commissioner and that of the new high representative on foreign affairs.
	If we were to take a no-harm approach—and nothing more—in trade policy, we might limit the possibilities of further meaningful reform. The present round of economic partnership agreements, for example, has failed to reduce or eliminate export subsidies. I also agree with other hon. Members that we need to lift access not only to the least developed countries but to all African countries. Whether we are talking about Kenya or Zambia, agricultural access to the European Union is vital to their economies, and we should now start to give that access without exception.
	Another example is that the European Union does not currently control the import of timber known to have been illegally logged, despite the fact that the WWF estimates that the EU is responsible for around €3 billion-worth of illegal timber trading a year. Such exports fuel conflict in areas such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and also have a devastating impact on global carbon emissions. That is a perfect example of the need for the European Union to act to co-ordinate policy in member states. A pro-development agenda in all parts of the policy making machine in Europe should recognise the value of such changes.
	I also hope that the new administrative structure will ensure that we can act together in important spheres, particularly in regard to taking forward the Paris declaration on aid co-ordination and alignment within Europe. With 27 states, the risk of a growing topsy-turvy jumble of aid programmes is all too high, which is why political priority and momentum must be put into pressing the case for greater, not less, collaboration. If possible, we should clearly separate the neighbourhood countries programmes from those funding streams with a stronger poverty-reduction focus, including the work of EuropeAid.
	The present artificial split of nations between the Development Commissioner and the External Relations Director needs to end. African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, as well as Asia and Latin America, should be brought together under a new, strengthened Development Commission portfolio. The message of today in the Lisbon treaty is that acting together, in co-operation, should mean better aid, and a better chance of reaching the millennium development goals.

Mark Lancaster: It is a pleasure to wind up this excellent debate, which started in characteristic style with the Secretary of State treating us—albeit with great charm—to the normal campaign of explanation that the treaty is a wonderful, innocuous document and that any Member who could not appreciate its merits was simply suffering from the usual Conservative paranoid delusions about its contents. He was quick to outline benefits such as the enshrined emphasis on poverty eradication, which we also applaud, but I had hoped that he would have been just as quick to acknowledge some of the shortcomings.
	All too often in debates of this nature, it is easy to get caught up in the detail and to miss the bigger picture. So let us be clear about what we are debating today. The treaty does little to improve the efficiency of EU aid; in fact, it does the reverse. It has the potential to decrease the freedom of action of member states to react to international crises, and it actively politicises the delivery of aid—something that the Government previously claimed to oppose.

Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Lancaster: I am not going to give way, because we are very short of time, and it would be unfair on the Minister if he had no time to speak.
	Crucially, with the removal of the reference to the most disadvantaged, the revised treaty will shift the EU's priorities away from the least developed countries. In our view, that marks a step backwards in the provision of aid and support for the developing world.
	I shall start, however, with the positives. Compared with other aspects of the treaty, it is fortunate that there is at least some consensus across the House on the subject of humanitarian development, as has been demonstrated by the contributions today. The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) made a passionate speech about poverty alleviation, the principles of which are, I am sure, shared across the House. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, however, for saying that the only flaw in his argument was his assertion that we needed a treaty to deliver that aim, or indeed any other of the aims highlighted by hon. Members—a point underlined, perhaps inadvertently, in the earlier intervention of the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas).
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) made an informed first contribution in his new role on the Front Bench and, having said that he felt unable to support our amendment, he proceeded to support many of our concerns on the nature of the treaty. He might not thank me for reminding him that he even managed to find a degree of consensus with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
	The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) made a thoughtful speech, arguing for the need for better co-ordination and greater efficiency in the delivery of aid. I agree with those points wholeheartedly, but she failed to outline which elements of the treaty would help to deliver those goals.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) made an excellent speech, based on a long-standing interest in aid and development—an interest underlined by the fact that it is now nearly 10 years since I first met him in Pristina, when I was Captain Lancaster and he was the shadow Secretary of State for International Development. He also rightly highlighted the concerns about the effectiveness of the delivery of EU aid, a point to which I will return shortly.
	The hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) made an interesting speech, in which he focused on trade liberalisation. I confess, however, that I was slightly surprised at his attack on his own former Minister, now the EU Trade Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson. I feel that it would be tactful to allow the Under-Secretary of State for International Development to adjudicate on this particular internal Labour dispute.
	As we have come to expect, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made an incisive speech that went to the heart of the issues that we are debating, namely, the fact that the Government are being forced to defend some of the very issues that they opposed during the negotiations. I shall return to that point in a moment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) highlighted the shortcomings of the EU in delivering aid, and outlined his concerns about the politicisation of aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone has a long-standing interest in these matters, and it shone through tonight in a passionate contribution that highlighted many of the shortcomings of the treaty.
	The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) spoke with considerable experience, and echoed earlier speakers' concerns that there was little in the treaty that would improve efficiency in the delivery of aid. The hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) spoke with passion about the role of multilaterals in development. I hope that she will forgive me, however, if I do not quite share her confidence in the EU as a means to deliver those goals.
	There are, as hon. Members have highlighted in their speeches, many areas of concern with the treaty. Indeed, in his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) highlighted no fewer than five areas in which the Government sought amendments during the negotiations. Those concerns were expressed to my hon. Friend during his meetings with the Presidents of Sierra Leone and Ghana last week. I am sure that my hon. Friend is flattered that the Secretary of State seems to be following in his footsteps around the world at the moment.
	In the brief time that I have remaining, I want to focus on just two of those concerns. The first is the impact of the provisions for shared competency on the effectiveness of the delivery of aid; the second is the politicisation of aid. As has been said, the EU is one of the major players in the development world, directly attributable for 57 per cent. of the world's official development assistance, and literally making the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. The fact remains, however, that the European Union and many of its member states are not good at delivering aid and development.
	Reference has been made to the description by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) of EC aid as an "outrage and a disgrace" during her time as Secretary of State for International Development. Positive steps have been taken since then, and the present Secretary of State rightly alluded to them in his speech, but those steps have been too little and too slow, and the EU still has a long way to go before it can truly be considered as an effective deliverer of aid. To be fair, this is something that the Commission itself recognised when it accepted that 40 per cent. of delays to aid projects were the result of the administrative processes of the EU. NGOs agree.
	A survey by Oxfam found that about a fifth of EU aid arrives more than a year late—something I experienced first hand and, I must say, with great frustration, during my own time delivering development in Afghanistan—but apart from the poor distribution of aid, the EU also suffers from fraud within its aid programme, which accounts for 21 per cent. of all fraud investigations conducted by the European anti-fraud office.
	While there is always room for improvement, the Department for International Development by contrast is generally well regarded as a deliverer of aid—perhaps the Secretary of State should sit up with pride at this moment. A report from the Canadian Government said of DFID:
	"Today it is generally considered to be the best in the World."
	 The Economist said that DFID was
	"a model for other rich countries".
	It is a source of pride for this House that DFID is clearly seen by many as a world leader, while EU aid is widely viewed as inefficient, fraudulent, directionless and governed by an over-bureaucratic mechanism.
	Conservative Members are therefore concerned that the Government seem determined to support a treaty that may, through the proposed entrenching of shared competence, undermine DFID's role and make it more impotent in the international development arena by effectively limiting what it can and cannot do. Let me be specific. Article 118(d) of the treaty states that EU and national policy in this area shall
	"complement and reinforce each other".
	More worrying is Article 214(6), which says:
	"The Commission may take any useful initiative to promote coordination between actions of the Union and of the Member States."
	What exactly does that mean—that DFID aid and development programmes must reinforce those of the EU and that the EU can overrule Britain's decisions on aid policy? Perhaps when the Minister winds up the debate, he will explain exactly how, given the relative efficiency of the UK compared to the EU in delivering aid, such a course of action would be in the interests of Britain, and perhaps even more importantly, in the interests of the developing world.
	Another principal concern of Conservative Members is the treaty's politicisation of aid and the Minister will be aware that we have tabled amendments on this issue—as, indeed, did the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who seemed rightly to share our concerns, during the treaty negotiations. Presumably he, like us, believed that for true development to occur in some of the harshest environments in the world, long-term development plans need to be effectively implemented and regularly scrutinised. Our concern is that that will not be allowed to happen while aid is used as a diplomatic tool by the EU and its high representative.
	To be clear, article 214 says:
	"The Union's operations in the field of humanitarian aid shall be conducted within the framework of the principles and objectives of the external action of the Union".
	Other articles are similar, but all highlight that humanitarian aid and development shall be subsumed under the principles of the EU External Action Service—a point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. But what are those principles? The Secretary of State outlined some of the principles covered by article 224 in his opening remarks, but the role of the European External Action Service is outlined in article 13 and at no point is humanitarian aid mentioned. Why not?
	Let me be clear that in the view of many, including NGOs, that amounts to a clear politicisation of aid, which flies in the face of everything that previous Labour Governments have stood for. On four separate occasions in 1947,1964, 1974 and 1997, the Labour Party moved the role of overseas development away from the Foreign Office—on each occasion to resist the politicisation of aid—so why the sudden change of heart? Why, after 50 years of doing the opposite and having opposed it in the treaty negotiations, are the Government now suddenly supporting the move to subsume the EU's humanitarian aid into the EEAS?
	The proposals do nothing to improve the efficiency of EU aid; what they do is represent a retrograde move towards the politicisation of aid, marking a further nail in the coffin for the freedom of action for member states. We want the EU to work in partnership with DFID, not to dictate to it. These treaty provisions are a move in the wrong direction—for Britain, for the EU and for developing nations. Crucially, as previous debates have highlighted, the Government are once again going back on their word, supporting bureaucracy over democracy by denying the people the referendum they deserve.

Gareth Thomas: This has been an interesting debate, and it is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster). I join the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) in welcoming the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who now leads for the Liberal Democrats on international development. I also echo the hon. Gentleman's point that one of the most powerful examples of EU and EC at its best was the commitment to achieving the 0.7 per cent. UN target, agreed and endorsed at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council in May 2005—a very strong example of Europe's convening power.
	I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield included one powerful point—the section where he quoted at length the full force and wisdom of a speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). However, I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, given the intemperate language that he used throughout much of his speech, that he might usefully reflect on the article written by Caroline Jackson, a Conservative MEP, in the  Financial Times last week. She said:
	"The time warp of the party's European attitudes"—
	she was talking about the Conservative party—
	"has...damaging effects...it means that the right-wing 'nasty' and dogmatic aspects of the party—so off-putting to voters from 1997 to 2005—are still alive."
	Earlier in the article, she noted that
	"the Conservative leadership is now even prepared to see its MEPs sit among the 'non-attached members' at the back of the parliament—a public admission of isolation and a poor position from which to operate in a parliament with increased powers."
	I must correct one particularly intemperate charge that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made—that the Foreign Secretary and other Foreign Office colleagues had effectively misrepresented the position of NGOs on this issue. Perhaps just one quote from my right hon. Friend's speech on Second Reading should clarify matters, as he said:
	"One World Action, Action Aid and Oxfam have announced their support for the measures on development co-operation".—[ Official Report, 21 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1241.]
	He specifically mentioned development co-operation; nothing more than that.
	I acknowledge that there are some genuine reasons to be worried about the performance of EC aid, and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) raised some of those concerns. I pay tribute to the leadership of each successive Secretary of State for International Development over the last 10 years in championing reform and seeking to sort out what was a fragmented, outdated and incoherent organisational set-up, which, needless to say, resulted in long delays. However, I say gently to Conservative Members that we should perhaps not be surprised at just how poor EC performance on aid was, given just how bad the UK's own record on development was before 1997.
	Let me provide three examples which stand out. In 1985, India bought helicopters from the UK after Margaret Thatcher bullied Rajiv Gandhi into ignoring the advice of his aviation experts who were against the sale. That money came out of Britain's aid budget and it was given to India on condition that it bought those helicopters. In 1991, we saw £234 million of British aid being used to finance the Pergau dam project in the hope of securing future arms deals from Malaysia—completely and utterly illegal and hugely damaging to Britain's reputation in development. Then, what about the huge decline in British aid that took place under the Conservatives? Given such a dismal record when the Conservatives were in government in comparison to our own development spending, is it at all surprising that they should have completely ignored the need to reform EC aid?
	Yet a series of such reforms have been championed and supported by every Secretary of State, seeking not just to improve the general functioning of the EC but to reform the way in which the EC delivers its aid. Those reforms include the clear strategic priorities for EC development aid, so we now have a clear EU development policy, the European consensus on development—drafted, in large part, in Britain and taken through during our presidency with the primary and overarching objective of poverty eradication and the achievement of the millennium development goals.
	We have seen radical improvements in management performance and the establishment of a new EU implementation agency. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) spoke about the need for such an agency, but there is one already in place—EuropeAid. We also have an effective multi-year planning system that sets out clear strategies, clear budgets and the expected results. In addition, financial administrative control mechanisms have been simplified, helping to speed up still further the delivery of aid on the ground where it matters. There has also been substantial decentralisation, helping to get EC aid decisions down to the local level, thereby seeking to improve the quality of aid and speeding up the disbursement of money.
	Opposition Members who have backed evaluation and monitoring, and the independence of evaluators, will surely welcome the independent evaluation of EC aid. Those reforms, championed by Labour Secretaries of State, have been delivered over the last 10 years. Such has been the progress that the OECD, in its review of EC development co-operation— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are breaking out throughout the Chamber. The House must listen to the Minister.

Gareth Thomas: The OECD noted that EC aid had improved substantially. It commended both the role of the Commission in reshaping its development co-operation and the progress made since its 2002 review. The House of Lords European Union Committee charted significant improvements in aid management and organisational effectiveness, and commended the Commission on its efforts. It went on to note that more needed to be done if the EU's aid was to match the best. This was, it said, mainly a matter of intensifying and carrying to completion the reforms that were currently in train. That was the purpose of the speech of mine to which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred.
	I believe that the EC is the force for good that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) wants it to be. A powerful example of that is the difference that the Commission is making in India, along with our aid and what is being done by the Indian Government and the various states of India. The Commission is helping to develop an education system capable of offering eight years of quality elementary schooling to all children. As a result, between 2001 and 2006 the number of children between six and 14 who are not at school has fallen from some 25 million to about 14 million.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon), among others, mentioned trade. I am a huge fan of my hon. Friend in many ways, but I beg to differ with him on this one occasion. I believe that open, well-regulated markets are a force for good in developing countries, just as they are in the European Union more generally. An example is the difference made by generic drugs in reducing the prices of antiretroviral drugs. I recognise that there are concerns about the issue, however, and I look forward to having other opportunities to discuss my hon. Friend's concerns with him.
	Other Members on both sides of the House raised specific issues relating to actions by the EC. Time does not allow me to focus on them, but I will consider whether I need to write to the Members involved.
	In a series of interventions, which were taken up by the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes, the hon. Member for Banbury asked whether foreign policy would now dominate development aid. Let me say gently to him that I do not think it will do so at all. For the first time, we have provision in the treaty for joint objectives for the EU's external actions, but—as I said in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—for the first time a treaty encapsulates the principle that poverty should be the driving focus of all EC aid.
	The treaty will deliver a series of sensible reforms in the way in which Europe operates, specifically in regard to development. It makes clear that the primary objective of development spending is the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. It can only be helpful to the cause that we have discussed today. It also reinforces the need to ensure that development objectives are taken into account in all EC policies that affect developing countries, and provides a separate legal basis for humanitarian aid, enshrining the principles of good humanitarian assistance. Those are positive, helpful reforms, and I commend them—and the treaty more generally—to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 341.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion , Mr. Deputy Speaker pu t forthwith  the Main Question, pursuant to Orders [28 January and this day]:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes 154.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning international development.

Orders of the Day

European Union (Amendment) Bill
	 — 
	[6th Allotted Day]

(Any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to international development)
	 Further considered in Committee.
	[Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

Clause 2
	 — 
	Addition to list of treaties

Mark Francois: I beg to move amendment No. 245, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) any provision that increases the influence of the Common Foreign and Security Policy on international aid; and
	(ii) '.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 246, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 12, inserted Article 2C TEC (TFEU), paragraph 4 relating to competence on development cooperation and humanitarian aid; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 268, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 158, inserted Article 188C TEU paragraph 3, providing for a special committee, in so far as it relates to international development; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 247, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) in Article 2, paragraph 161(a), amendments to inserted Article 188D TEC (TFEU), the words "Union policy in the field of development cooperation shall be conducted within the framework of the principles and objectives of the Union's external action";
	(ii) in Article 2, paragraph 166(a), amendment to inserted Article 188H TEC (TFEU), the words "Such measures shall be consistent with the development policy of the Union and shall be carried out within the framework of the principles and objectives of its external action";
	(iii) in Article 2, paragraph 168, inserted Article 188J TEC (TFEU), paragraph 1, the words "The Union's operations in the field of humanitarian aid shall be conducted within the framework of the principles and objectives of the external action of the Union"; and
	(iv) '.
	No. 272, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 161(a), replacement paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 188D TEC (TFEU), on the objectives of European Union development co-operation policy; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 273, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 166(a), replacement paragraph 1 or Article 188H, TEC (TFEU), the words "other than developing countries", in relation to economic, financial and technical co-operation with third countries; and
	(ii) '.

Mark Francois: In essence, the amendment seeks to strike out the provisions of the Lisbon treaty that increase the influence of the EU's common foreign and security policy over international aid. In doing so, it would allow the EU's development aid resources to be concentrated solely on the delivery of efficient development aid projects, often to the least developed countries, free from the risk that they could become entwined in the EU's political and non-development-related foreign policy objectives.
	How does the Lisbon treaty risk politicising the EU's development aid and entwining it with the EU's wider foreign policy? First, it includes provisions such as those set out in our amendment No. 247 relating to article 188D of the treaty on the European Community—to be renamed the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—which states:
	"Union policy in the field of development cooperation shall be conducted within the framework of the principles and objectives of the Union's external action."
	Secondly, the treaty will create a Foreign Minister, albeit under another name, who could have ultimate—I stress the word "ultimate"—responsibility for the EU's aid budget. The Foreign Minister will be supported by the External Action Service, or diplomatic service, which it is proposed will incorporate all the EU's external actions, including—importantly in this context—development. The role of the Foreign Minister creates the risk that the substantial resources of the aid budget will be used to carry out EU foreign policy objectives above those of the provision of aid to the least developed countries, which may be less of a priority to the EU if seen solely from a foreign policy point of view.
	Thirdly, the institutional changes proposed in the treaty would decrease the number of Commissioners and could thus leave development aid without its own Commissioner on an equal footing to the EU Foreign Minister. That is an important question on which I shall ask the Minister for reassurance later, so I am giving him notice in case he needs to seek inspiration on the matter.

Jim Murphy: I am already inspired.

Mark Francois: None the less, I see that further inspiration is being provided from elsewhere, so presumably when the Minister replies he will be doubly inspired. If he looks behind him he will understand what I mean.
	The potentially harmful effects of the creation of the post of EU Foreign Minister have not gone unnoticed by organisations and charities that specialise in development aid. BOND—British Overseas NGOs for Development—is an umbrella group for UK voluntary organisations working in international development, including Oxfam, the African Relief Fund, Christian Aid, Save the Children and UNICEF UK, and was one of the first to raise concerns. BOND stated:
	"Attempts to consolidate the EU's profile on foreign and security policy risk sidelining commitments on development. The proposal to merge the jobs of High Representative and External Relations Commissioner into a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy may be an opportunity to strengthen the EU external action and strategic vision, but it must not lead to sidelining commitments to development...The proposal that the High Representative, responsible for the implementation of the Common Foreign and security policy, also has at his or her disposal a significant aid budget and staff within an external action service suggests a potential danger of increased politicisation of development cooperation or instrumentalisation of development funds for implementing foreign policy objectives."
	In an earlier debate, we have already touched on the role of the EU Foreign Minister in strengthening the EU's role in foreign policy; you will be pleased to hear, Sir Alan, that I do not propose to reprise all those points. However, in relation to this evening's debate, BOND is concerned that the Foreign Minister will have an inherent conflict of interest with development aid, and that needs to be addressed.

Shailesh Vara: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there was conflict of interest over limited resources, in the absence of a specific champion for development funds, the Foreign Minister would be under enormous pressure from those competing interests, whereas a specific champion for development aid would have his own brief and would fight much harder?

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend, as is his wont, makes an apposite point. In the British Cabinet, there is a Secretary of State for International Development and a Foreign Secretary, but in a slimmed-down Commission it looks as though there will be a Foreign Minister—by another name—but probably not a Commissioner for development. However, perhaps when the Minister replies he can reassure us that there will still be two posts. We certainly want to hear the Government's view and their answer to the question that my hon. Friend was entirely right to raise.
	BOND also pointed out that as well as the possibility that the EU's development budget could be put under that of the Foreign Minister, there is the possibility that development aid could be left without its own Commissioner. As we know, the Lisbon treaty will reduce the number of Commissioners from 27 to 18, but like much of the treaty the details of which portfolios will be in the charge of the remaining Commissioners will be known only after the treaty is ratified—a point raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the shadow Secretary of State. A leaked document from the EU Slovenian presidency also made that point clear, so I shall press the Minister on whether he can guarantee that EU development aid will have its own Commissioner, in the Commission, after Lisbon is ratified. A yes or no will do.
	In the absence of such reassurance on that point, BOND has said:
	"What is at stake is the future political space for development within a new institutional structure...This would not only blur the division of powers between the institutions but it would also allow development policy to be at the disposal of the High Representative."
	The Lisbon treaty could therefore have a damaging effect on international aid. In practice, it could lead to the further concentration of EU aid on the EU's near neighbours and political priorities. Already, three of the top five recipients of the Commission's aid are middle-income countries—Serbia-Montenegro, Turkey and Morocco—that lie within the EU's immediate neighbourhood. Countries with the lowest incomes are notable by their absence, with only the Congo and Afghanistan making the top five. The Committee will realise that there are special reasons in the case of Afghanistan. With the Lisbon treaty, we can expect the EU's political aims to be further prioritised over those of the least developed countries. That may have led to the words "developing countries" specifically being omitted from the treaty's objectives for financial and technical co-operation, a deficit that we would remedy with amendment No. 273.
	A lot of competing quotations from BOND were cited during the previous debate. The Government prayed it in aid, and Conservative Members rightly pointed out some of its concerns. Let me put on record something that BOND said on the treaty as a whole:
	"BOND and its member organisations do not have a position on whether or not the EU reform treaty is adopted, or whether or not there should be a referendum."
	On Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary was keen to give the House the impression—I choose my words carefully—that there was considerable support for the treaty among the NGO community in this field. Bearing in mind that BOND represents a collection of important NGOs, I think that the Foreign Secretary over-egged his case, to put it mildly. That is why it was important that I had the opportunity, which I have been pleased to take, to read that point into the record.
	I shall conclude my remarks so that other hon. Members may speak. Amendment No. 245 is designed to remedy one of the treaty's major defects on international aid. It would make the EU's aid budget independent from its foreign policy and allow it to be used to the best advantage of the least developed countries in particular. Specifically, it would take responsibility for EU development aid away from the EU Foreign Minister and remove the risk of the EU's aid budget being diverted to the furtherance of the EU's foreign policy. Amendment No. 273 would allow financial and technical co-operation to be targeted to developing countries.
	Given the dangers that I have outlined, I ask the Minister to give the Committee two specific assurances. First, if Lisbon is ratified, will the EU have its own development commissioner, independent of the Foreign Minister—yes or no? Secondly, if Lisbon is ratified, will development officials working in the External Action Service be responsible to that development Commissioner, if we have one? If we do not, will they report directly to the EU Foreign Minister? I hope that the Minister will attempt to answer those two clear questions, not least because we must consider whether to press the amendment to a Division.

Michael Moore: It will not be a surprise to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) that there will never be common ground between us on the high representative and the development of the common foreign and security policy. I am sure that the authors of the BOND paper will be delighted by the slightly higgledy-piggledy manner in which every bit of it seems to have been quoted this afternoon. In the previous debate, I used one of the quotations that the hon. Gentleman cited, so I do not think that it is a killer quotation in favour of his broader point.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman that one big thing that we press for all the time is greater co-ordination—within the United Kingdom, in the European Union and in other multilateral institutions. We want better co-ordination among political foreign policy objectives, development issues and, where relevant, defence matters. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) said, the lines between some of those matters are necessarily blurred on occasion. I wonder whether we should be a bit more pragmatic in our approach to the high representative and the other aspects of the new CFSP arrangements, notwithstanding my having asked in the previous debate for some reassurances on the high representative having administrative staff dedicated to this area. We have the prospect of a proper focus on poverty alleviation at the heart of the treaty, which is a pretty good guarantee that it will remain the major focus of development assistance and a vast improvement on what we had before.
	Finally, will the hon. Gentleman consider the example of Kosovo, because I am not sure where he would put that on the great spectrum of development, foreign policy and defence-type issues? Although it is clear that a proportion of its population has to endure extreme poverty, Kosovo would not usually meet the benchmarks for most recognised assessments of extreme poverty. However, in the context of the past couple of weeks, surely we have an ongoing responsibility to Kosovo. The new set of arrangements will allow us to meet that, but a much more clear-cut separation regarding development would not.

James Clappison: I support amendment No. 245, which strikes at the heart of a long-standing problem in the EU: funds being diverted away from aid, especially aid for the least developed and poorest countries, towards achieving foreign policy objectives involving countries that might be poor by our standards, but not compared with the poorest countries in the world.

Peter Bone: Is not my hon. Friend's argument that aid is given to certain causes for political aims? The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), too, raised that point. Such causes might be very good, but that process can take aid away from the least developed countries.

James Clappison: That is exactly the problem that amendment No. 245 confronts. Are we talking about aid given purely on the basis of development criteria—how poor a country is, its position with regard to human development and various measures of relative poverty—or aid given as part of a wider objective relating to political and strategic considerations? The amendment is very apt in that context. Having heard the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) about the impact of the new high representative, the European External Action Service and the reinforced European common foreign and security policy, I think that they might come together to make the existing situation worse.
	In saying that, I do not draw a veil over the existing problems of EU aid policy, which are long-standing and widely recognised. European Union development co-operation and aid have stretched back as far as the EU itself, certainly throughout the 25-year history of the Lomé convention. The EU has provided a significant proportion of world aid throughout its history. However, has the money that has been spent by European Union institutions—as opposed to money from individual states—been well used? There is often a sense that the European Union's relatively wealthy nations are trying to compensate developing nations for the effects that EU policies have had on them.
	An academic study by Karin Arts and Anna Dickson concluded that over the long term, the European Union's policy on development has fallen short, saying that
	"the sum effect is the creation of an ineffective, and perhaps symbolic, development policy. That is to say, ineffective in the realm of producing, encouraging or facilitating development, although effective in creating the image of an actor engaged with the world's poor."
	That is absolutely relevant to my hon. Friend's amendment. Are we going to have an EU policy in which the EU is an actor going through the motions with other objectives in mind, or an EU aid policy that delivers aid to the poorest people?
	Various views were attributed to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) during our earlier debate. She put it succinctly when she said that the European Commission was
	"the worst development agency in the world".
	Her successor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), to whom hon. Members have rightly paid tribute for his sincere convictions on this subject, put it in his own way. On the subject of European development aid, he told the Select Committee on Science and Technology:
	"as I think everybody knows, it has not been terribly effective in the past."
	Coming from the right hon. Gentleman, and knowing the terms that he tends to use, that is even more damning than the conclusion of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood.
	Time and again, reform has been promised. We were promised it in the treaty, and we have to see that reform against the criterion in my hon. Friend's amendment. We have heard time and again—I think that I heard shades of it in the speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), when he summed up on behalf of the Government—the classic bureaucrat's defence: "Things have not been as they should, but we are putting them right."
	The Select Committee on International Development put its finger on some of the long-standing problems in European Union policy when it reviewed the effectiveness of the promised reforms in 2002. It said:
	"We remain concerned by the lack of transparency as to which funds are intended for poverty reduction, the continuing division of responsibilities between DG Development and DG External Relations, and the questionable ability of the Commission to staff its Delegations adequately and appropriately."
	To be fair to those involved in the European Union's aid effort, lack of transparency and ineffective bureaucracy are hardly unique characteristics of the European Union, but they are important when we debate whether more and more policy making in aid will fall within the remit of central European institutions rather than that of individual member states.
	In 2003, the International Development Committee said that it was waiting to see whether European Union reforms would result in a greater focus on poverty reduction, but it has been and remains the case that too little of the EU's international development effort is devoted to the poorest countries in the world. For the purposes of the amendment, we need to ask whether so much EU aid will continue to go to countries in eastern and central Europe and the Mediterranean region—countries that may be less developed than we and other western European nations are, but hardly count among the poorest in the world.
	Far too little EU aid goes to the least developed countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa. That is the situation that we confront now, and we must see the amendments in that context. If my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Rayleigh is right in his analysis of the impact of the high representative, the EU's new foreign policy-making institutions and its new drift towards integrated EU supranational control over foreign policy, the situation could get even worse—but my goodness me, we have grounds enough for concern already.
	Less than half the European Union's aid goes to the least developed countries and low-income countries. Less than 40 per cent. of aid goes to sub-Saharan Africa. I heard the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for International Development about how matters had improved since 2002, but since 2003, the proportion of EU aid going to sub-Saharan Africa has fallen. I quote figures very helpfully supplied to me by the House of Commons Library, which tells me that the amount of EU aid going to sub-Saharan Africa as a proportion of the EU's overall budget has fallen from 38.9 per cent. in 2003 to 35.6 per cent. today. This debate is taking place against the background of a falling proportion of EU aid to sub-Saharan Africa.
	When one considers the amount of aid being given to individual countries, the situation is even starker. In support of his amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh rightly highlighted the case of Mediterranean and eastern European countries; I think that he mentioned Turkey, Morocco and Serbia in his list of the top 10 recipients of EU aid. In fact, according to the note helpfully supplied to me by the Library, those countries are the top three. Turkey receives the most aid, Morocco the next most and Serbia the third most.
	In terms of aid received per capita, the situation is starker still. According to the Library's calculations, Serbia receives about 60 times more aid per capita than Bangladesh, and a total of three times more in overall aid budget. I may be wrong, but I imagine that when those figures on the distribution of EU aid were produced, Kosovo was counted as part of Serbia. We can therefore read them in the context of European Union policy towards Kosovo and Serbia. That might be worthy on its own account. It might be intended to achieve just results, self-determination and a peaceful solution to the long-standing problems in the Balkans; there might be other issues as well. It is a complicated part of the world, and I do not propose to go into detail during this debate about all the merits of those issues, but the point of the amendment is undoubtedly that aid is a focal point for EU foreign and security policy. It appears from the statistics that the aid disbursed by the European Union is driven by the EU's common foreign and security policy objectives. It certainly cannot be driven by the relative poverty of Serbia or Kosovo, for instance, when compared with the very poorest countries, including Bangladesh.

Hugh Bayley: The International Development Committee has conducted a number of inquiries into European Union aid. It appears to me that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the European Commission aid programme, which is highly skewed towards the near abroad—the Mediterranean countries, Turkey, Morocco, Egypt and so on—because that is its purpose. Aid to sub-Saharan Africa comes largely from the European development fund, and 90 per cent. of that fund's aid goes to the least developed countries. He is talking accurately about EC aid, but that is only part of the European Union's total aid package.

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He makes a further point in support of my own, as the European Union's skewed aid policy is disguised within the subdivision of budgets. It is nevertheless money being spent, and it is counted as European Union aid. It may be divided up into different budgets, but as far as taxpayers and people interested in aid in this country are concerned, a very large sum of EU aid is being spent in countries that are relatively less poor, and a much greater amount is being spent in countries such as Serbia, Morocco and Lebanon. The European Union has political and security concerns about those countries, but they are not among the poorest nations in the world. The Department for International Development has set a target for 90 per cent. of its bilateral aid to go to the poorest countries—but the same imperative does not seem to govern European Union aid. Will the Minister for Europe give his estimate of how much of what the Government regard to be aid from EU institutions goes to low-income countries?
	The expert analysis given by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) in the earlier debate on the motion about the Lisbon treaty was hardly comforting for the Government on that point. My hon. Friend spoke from his own particular perspective, but he said that he did not regard the treaty as a great step forward. He said that we were talking about a total non-debate that added to the democratic deficit. We have often heard it said that the European Union has comparative advantages because of its size and other factors, but the evidence of the lack of poverty focus, ineffective bureaucracy, lack of transparency, slow delivery and possible fraud seems to suggest that it does not perform as well as others in the field, such as nation states. To all those problems may now be added that caused by the role played by the European Union's reinforced common foreign and security policy. The issues that my hon. Friend raised were important.
	The situation is dominated by long-standing problems that have riddled the European Union's whole aid history. We need to be extremely careful that we do not make an unsatisfactory situation worse by handing over more influence and authority to the centralised European Union foreign policy institutions that the treaty introduces; my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh was right to mention those issues. I do not draw the reassurance that I would like from the Government's position on the issue, although I heard what the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West, said.

Peter Bone: I am following carefully my hon. Friend's powerful speech. Is it not one of the problems with the new high representative—or Foreign Secretary—that if the European Union decides collectively on a particular foreign policy objective, its implementation is down to the high representative? He could mess around with the aid budget at will to achieve that objective.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a germane point, which is relevant to the amendment. It does not matter what we call the high representative; everybody else in the world is calling him a Foreign Minister, but he was originally described as the European Union's foreign policy Minister. That has been changed to high representative. The fact remains that the post is a new institution, and the holder has been charged with the implementation and delivery of European Union policy, according to strategy and guidelines issued by the European Council. How he implements that strategy is a matter for him and for Foreign Ministers in the Council of the European Union. He has the right to bring initiatives before the Council. The Council then decides on the initiatives, often through qualified majority voting.
	The point is that we are dealing with an individual who has been charged by the European Union with getting results in the field of foreign policy, and the levers of power have been put in his hands. The high representative is not only a member of the Commission, but chairs the Council of Ministers. He has all the levers of power for implementing European Union policy in his hands. There is therefore a risk that he will get his hands on the lever of European Union aid policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh said, and that it will become part of the European Union's overall foreign policy, as opposed to being compartmentalised as development policy, under which development money would be spent according to strict development aid criteria such as relative poverty. I have heard the Government's defence on that point, which relates to the insertion of the poverty criteria in the treaty, but their defence does not seem to be much more qualified than that. It does not strike me that that is something that the Government have been keen to trumpet in the past.
	Shortly after an initial meeting in June to set out the framework for the intergovernmental conference mandate at the European Council meeting, the Government issued a document called "The Reform Treaty: The British Approach to the European Intergovernmental Conference, July 2007". It set out the Government's position after the European Council, and the decisions taken there by the previous Prime Minister. The document was to set the scene for the intergovernmental conference that came later in the year in Lisbon. It goes into detail about the Government's position. It gives a detailed analysis of what the Government regard as being the principal changes made to the treaty—the innovations and the Government's policy towards them. There is barely any mention in the document of development aid policy. When the Minister for Europe winds up, I challenge him to tell me what important announcements are made in the document about European Union development aid policy and our Government's policy towards it.
	What the Government said about the change in the treaty is very thin indeed. There is mention of poverty, but not poverty in any particular country or the most disadvantaged countries. No refinement or clearer targeting is given. The fear in my mind is that the substantial EU aid funding, which comes in part from taxpayers in this country, will be spent according to wider objectives and not strictly according to development aid criteria. That is a fear for all of us who are concerned about development and aid.
	Our wish is for aid to go to the poorest countries in the world, without being diverted because of other issues and priorities. It should go to the very poorest people in the world to give them the chance of a better future—to countries such as Bangladesh, to sub-Saharan African countries, to countries that are ravaged by AIDS and have terrible problems. Those are places where it can really contribute to development and to lifting people out of the direst poverty. We do not want it to go towards alleviating poverty in countries that might be poor by our standards but that are in a much better position than the poorest countries in the world. My hon. Friend's amendment hits the nail on the head: there is some risk of desperately needed aid funds being diverted away from the people who need them most.

Rob Marris: I shall refer to the consolidated texts of the EU treaties as amended by the treaty of Lisbon, because I always think that it is useful to know what the wording would be if the European Union reform treaty—the Lisbon treaty—were agreed by the 27 member states, unamended. I start with article 3 of the treaty on the function of the European Union, which is on page 38 of the consolidated texts. Article 3, paragraph 1 is about common fisheries policy, the customs union and so on, but I would like to make a point about competence, which is mentioned in paragraph 2, although I stand to be corrected by the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). Paragraph 2 says:
	"The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope."
	My reading of the provision—the hon. Member for Rayleigh, who moved the amendment, may read it differently and, if so, I would very much like him to point it out to me—is that taken in totality, article 3, particularly paragraph 2, does not lead to exclusive competence for the EU in international development matters. That is my starting point. If I have misunderstood the provision, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, in his usual helpful way, will correct me. If I am right, however, that somewhat detracts from his arguments about competence.
	Amendment No. 268, which deals with the special committee, refers to article 207 on page 133 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. I do not wish to read out the whole article, so I shall simplify it for the Committee. It provides for a special committee to be set up that, in consultation with the Commission—the special committee having been appointed by the Council to assist the Commission—can start negotiations and so on. The free-standing special committee cannot go off on a frolic of its own, as it is set up by the Commission and is responsible to it. Understandable concerns have been expressed about whether the high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy would hijack the international aid agenda, but that matter is dealt with in paragraph 3 of article 218, which appears on page 139 of the consolidated text. I will not read out the whole thing—just what I think is relevant. If Members think that I am quoting selectively, doubtless they will let me know.

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman and I are both minor veterans of Finance Bill Committees. I think that we have served on three.

Rob Marris: I have served on six.

Mark Francois: I have served on three such Committees. Perish the thought that anyone in the House should accuse the hon. Gentleman of selective quoting.

Rob Marris: That exemplifies the hon. Gentleman's generosity, because I was accused of selective quoting in the last EU debate—I cannot remember whether it was in the debate on the amendments or in the thematic debate—and, in a sense, that accusation was correct, because I did not read out a sub-clause that concluded the sentence. When I did so, it threw up a series of questions, which have been raised by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), about the commonalty of foreign policy and so on.

Mark Francois: For the avoidance of doubt, the Government have been guilty of selective quoting throughout the entire process. I do not want anyone to think that I have let them off the hook, but I am simply saying that when we debated the Finance Bill, by and large, the hon. Gentleman played a straight bat.

Rob Marris: I repeat my appreciation of the hon. Gentleman's generosity. I certainly do not answer directly for the Government, as the hon. Gentleman and the House know.
	Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I turn to article 218 on page 139.

Peter Bone: I do not know whether this is the problem with the European Union, or whether it is just a slip-up, but article 218 appears on page 141 of my copy of the consolidated text, although it appears on page 139 of the hon. Gentleman's copy. Is it not typical of the EU that it cannot even get the page numbers right?

Rob Marris: I am using the Stationery Office publication, which I obtained from the Vote Office. The hon. Gentleman may have obtained a different copy from the Vote Office, but the copy I am using is the same as the one that has been placed on the Table in the Chamber.

Peter Bone: I do not know whether this is an unusual procedure, because I have just taken my copy from the Table, so do the Government have a different version from us?

Rob Marris: I do not wish to prolong this exchange. As I said, I am not answerable for the Government. It is clear which version I am using. I would like to think that when I refer to article 218 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU, hon. Members can find it, whatever version they use. To put paragraph 3 of article 218 into context, it deals with the question of whether the high representative would hijack foreign aid, as hon. Members may recall. Now that we are focused on the issue, I shall, at last, quote the paragraph:
	"The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, shall submit recommendations to the Council"
	and so on. That clearly suggests that the hijacking or giving of exclusive power or authority to the high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy does not include the concept that the high representative would abrogate the power to determine the EU's policy for its aid budgets, let alone member states' aid budgets. It refers to circumstances
	"where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy".
	That suggests that the Commission would, in instances in which the agreement envisaged does not relate exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, submit its own recommendations to the Council. So there is a division there. Most hon. Members would not expect foreign aid to come under common foreign and security policy, although I understand that there is a fear about it being so subsumed.
	I turn next to article 21 of the treaty on the European Union, which in my version of the consolidated texts from the Vote Office is on page 18. The final paragraph, which is the second part of paragraph 3, states:
	"The Union shall ensure consistency between the different areas of its external action and between these and its other policies. The Council and the Commission, assisted by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall ensure that consistency and shall cooperate to that effect."
	The word on which I would place emphasis for the purpose of the debate on the amendments is "consistency", which is the fifth word of that paragraph and occurs again towards the end of the paragraph.
	I know that there can be problems of translation of European Union documents, depending on which language they were originally written in. Sometimes they are stitched together from different delegations and different sherpas, as I believe they are called. However, the word in that paragraph is "consistency", not "coterminosity". The amendments, as I read and understand them, imply that in that part of the consolidated texts where the word "consistency" is used, "coterminosity" is meant. I do not read the texts in that way.

Bob Spink: In applying the argument that the EU seeks consistency between its various policies, is not the hon. Gentleman exposing the problem with this part of the Lisbon treaty? The EU has a policy of illiberal protectionism, road-blocking the Doha round of trade talks, not reforming the CAP and pursuing biofuels that will starve the poorest parts of the world. Consistency with those policies is just what is damaging international development and holding back the developing world.

Rob Marris: Taken in totality, without rehearsing the debates that we have had in the House, the European Union reform treaty takes the European Union a step further away from the protectionism that the hon. Gentleman fears may exist. I have those fears, but I think the treaty is a step in the right direction away from such protectionism. As I have said previously in our debates, the treaty as a whole is a two-way street. There are things that we can learn from the other member states, and there are certainly things that they can learn from us.
	In respect of international aid and in many other fields, the treaty is a step forward in terms of leverage because, in certain areas where we agree with the other member states, it has a multiplier effect on the influence of the United Kingdom as a small country with a proud history and one that is still a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The treaty magnifies our influence, which has certainly declined from the 1900s, for good reasons, with the disappearance of the empire. Whether on international aid or other matters, within the European Union we have quite a measure of independence. The debates today on international development show that.
	International development is not the exclusive competence of the EU and should not be. Where we can work with the other 26 member states to produce a greater effect in the world than we could by acting bilaterally, that is a positive for the countries that we are trying to assist and for the influence that the United Kingdom wishes to wield and continues to wield in the world.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to be following the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), whose legal mind made powerful points—although the copies of the text do not always seem to be the same.
	I was excited at this, day No. 6 of the Committee of the Whole House on the European Union (Amendment) Bill. I thought that, for the first time, there would be something to encourage me to support the treaty. The Government have led on the criticism of the failure of the European Union to deliver aid to the least developed countries in the world. They have been highly critical of the failure in the Doha round.
	In my view, the greatest failure of the European Union has been the damage that it has done to developing countries—it has been criminal how it has blocked access to markets that would relieve poverty across the world. It seems strange that the Lisbon treaty will not improve the development aid situation, but make it worse. It seems incredible that instead of strengthening the role of development aid within the EU, we are going to make it a subsection of foreign policy. The high representative will run around trying to build empires and influence people, and will undoubtedly use the aid budget to implement foreign policy.
	Amendment No. 245 seems a mild one that would improve the treaty; I do not think anyone on the Government side could argue against it. All it basically says is that the aid budget should remain unaffected by the high commissioner or high representative—given what many people think of the post, we could call him the effective Foreign Secretary.

Bob Spink: My hon. Friend just mentioned the Government side. Is he aware that in a recent review on the effectiveness of the EU, the Department for International Development itself said:
	"The UK would like to see a greater focus on low income countries for spending from the EC Budget."
	My hon. Friend may not be aware that I was a member of the Labour-chaired Science and Technology Committee, whose 13th report of Session 2003-04, on the use of science in UK international development policy, states in conclusion 11:
	"It is not acceptable that 25 per cent. of DFID's funds have been potentially allocated to development programmes that are widely perceived to have been of dubious effectiveness...DFID's past failure to monitor its multilateral"—

The Chairman: Order. The intervention is far too long. By including a great chunk of quotation, the hon. Gentleman has taken an intervention beyond its procedural purpose in the House.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend's intervention explains our dilemma. I do not blame the Government or Ministers, because I know that they are absolutely furious about how the European Union behaves on aid. The Government clearly do not have any influence in Europe; if they really were at the heart of Europe and if the European Union really did improve aid, the least developed countries would not complain. It seems to me that a protectionist ring is built around the European Union, which does not care much about people who live a long way from European borders. We spend £10 billion a year of taxpayers' money on the European Union. I am sure that if we directly gave away a small proportion of that, it would be more useful and effective and create a better living for people.
	I turn back to amendment No. 245. I have not heard any Government Member say that it is a horrible wrecking device designed to destroy the Lisbon treaty, as they normally do. They have been very quiet. The amendment is so mild that I assume that, when the time comes, the Government will see the wisdom of their ways and accept it. Notes have been whizzing back and forwards and Members have obviously touched on things of which the Government were not aware.
	This is an opportunity for the Government to accept a very mild amendment—the sort of thing that would be seen to improve the Bill if we were having a proper Committee debate that was going straight through, with none of this four-hour nonsense beforehand. I think it was the Lord Chancellor who said that he has never seen a Bill that has gone through Committee and has not come out much improved. The Government seem to be saying, "We are against any reasonable amendment because you're trying to wreck the Bill." There is something seriously wrong with our Government if they do not want to take on board reasoned arguments on how to improve things to help the less developed countries. If all they are concerned about is getting this through so that they win Brownie points with our European Union colleagues, that is an absolute disgrace.
	I had the pleasure, until I was thrown off, of serving on the Trade and Industry Committee—

Jim Murphy: You probably walked out.

Peter Bone: I am sorry; I did walk out earlier on. I was very cross. I have lain down in a darkened room, and I am back here feeling a lot better, thank you.
	The Committee was looking into relations with India and talking about the Doha round and the complete blocking by the European Union, which would not allow market access in order to protect French farmers. As a result, people in Bangladesh and other parts of the world were losing out. I said to a very senior business man from India, "What is the best thing that could be done to improve trade and relieve poverty in the sub-continent?" He said straight away, with no hesitation or prompting, "The best thing would be to pull out of the European Union." That is the problem. Most people outside the EU think that the development aid budget has been a complete failure and believe that the Government's influence at the heart of Europe is absolutely zilch. I do not see how this Bill will improve the situation; in fact, it will make it worse.

Rob Marris: Let me gently point out two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, I was on that Select Committee with him, and the obstacle was certainly not the European Union alone, if at all—it was also to do with a two-way street and restricted market access to India. Secondly, it might help if he read the Lisbon treaty, if he has not already done so, because the consolidated treaties document to which he referred earlier is dated November 2006 and was published 13 months before the EU reform treaty was signed.

Peter Bone: I was aware of the hon. Gentleman's second point.
	The serious issue that we should confront as politicians is that there is real poverty in the world. The European Union was supposed to help to end that by getting together and moving forward, but we have not done so. I know that the Government are upset about that, but I cannot see anything in the Bill that improves it. We have a very poor situation that will be made worse by potentially moving control of the budget to a high representative. The hon. Gentleman said that there are all these legal reasons why it should not happen, but the trouble is that in reality, slice by slice, the European Union has always built empires.

James Clappison: Given that, beyond peradventure, the common foreign and security provisions are creating a situation whereby more and more people will look to Europe for foreign policy and more foreign policy will come from Europe, does my hon. Friend fear that development policy will follow in train of that?

Peter Bone: I am grateful for that intervention.
	This is not happening by design or because Government Members do not believe that what they are saying is correct, but history shows that whenever one gives more to the European Union it takes more, slice by slice, and develops empires, and the high representative will want to develop his or her role. By moving the aid budget towards foreign policy aims, it seems to me that that is exactly what will happen. I urge the Government to accept this very mild Opposition amendment to improve the Bill.

Hugh Bayley: It is a special irony to hear so many Conservative Members getting to their feet to express the view that development policy might be somehow hijacked if it came under the control of the foreign affairs wing of the European Union. I recall the time more than 10 years ago when their party were in government and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was a Minister. At that time, the Overseas Development Administration, the British development wing, was part of the Foreign Office and it required a Labour Government to separate it in order to give development policy the independence that Conservative Members are now so staunchly defending.
	In anticipation that the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) will get to his feet again when he has heard the Minister's response to his questions on behalf of BOND and other lobbyists, may I ask him whether his party, if it were ever to form a Government again, would commit to the retention of an international development Department separate from the Foreign Office? He has argued that it is a failing of the treaty that the European Union will subsume development policy within its common foreign and security policy. Will he give a commitment that his party would not do the same in the UK, were it to form a Government?
	It is also a great irony to hear Conservative Members complain that one of the EU's policy failures is that it spends relatively little aid in the least developed countries. In the debate earlier this evening, I cited figures that showed that during the last Parliament when a Conservative Government were in power, not only did the proportion of our national wealth given in aid contributions fall, but the proportion of British aid given to the least developed countries fell sharply. The Conservatives have changed their policy, and I warmly welcome that. We should be particularly pleased that after 10 years of a Labour Government, the Conservative party has seen that it made mistakes in the past, and is arguing that such mistakes should not be repeated by the EU. I hope that it will apply the same strictures to the Government.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Rayleigh will respond to a second point. His amendment is grouped with amendment No. 272, proposed by Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, who I believe could still—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to get the nomenclature right. We do not refer to colleagues by their name.

Hugh Bayley: Proposed by the hon. Member—[Hon. Members: "Right honourable"]—the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). I do apologise, Mr. Haselhurst.

Rob Marris: Sir Alan.

Hugh Bayley: I am really getting in trouble now. Sir Alan, I thank you—

The Chairman: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman want to take time out to think about this?

Hugh Bayley: Sir Alan, I do not. I want to make progress on this point, and to do so quickly.
	The lead amendment is grouped with amendment No. 272. I suppose it is possible that the right hon. Member for Wells could formally propose the amendment. As I understand it, that amendment would exclude article 161 (a) from the treaty, which specifies:
	"Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries."
	That part of the treaty requires European Union development policy to have poverty focus as its primary objective. Members of all parties have said that that provision is extremely important, and have welcomed it. That is also the part of the treaty that requires the EU to co-ordinate policies run by other parts of the Union, such as its trade policy or agriculture policy, and to make them coherent with the development policy. Again, I have heard Conservative Members, as well as Members from other parties, support that provision warmly tonight.
	If amendment No. 272 is moved tonight, will the hon. Member for Rayleigh and Members of his party support the deletion from the treaty of the poverty alleviation commitment and the policy coherence commitment? Having heard the speeches this evening, I should have thought that that was at least the one part of the treaty on which there was good cross-party consensus: policy coherence ought to happen, and the EU ought to pursue such policies. The EU would certainly be more likely to pursue those policies if they were in the treaty.

Shailesh Vara: I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I am particularly concerned about the prospect of the development budget being under the control of the European high commissioner, rather than under the control of a separate commissioner who deals with development. That proposal relegates the importance of development. Without a separate individual with authority at the EU negotiating table who speaks up on development, poverty and aid, the importance of that area of responsibility will be diminished.
	Development is, as we all acknowledge, vital. We also all understand that we are dealing with limited resources. It is all very well to have comforting words from the Minister, and I do not doubt their sincerity, but I doubt the implementation of the mechanism to deliver the good deeds from the good words that have been articulated about achieving the alleviation of poverty throughout the world.
	I was particularly struck by the memorable speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). He eloquently pointed out the fact that the most deserving countries are receiving less funding from the European Union. It was particularly noteworthy that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) commented on the fact that if the high commissioner were in charge of development aid as well as foreign policy and security, there is a strong possibility that decisions to do with aid would follow the principles governing foreign and security decisions.
	By way of illustration, let me give a contemporary example. We have the declaration of independence in Kosovo, and 22 European countries have accepted that independence. Five have not. Incidentally, such a divergence of opinion is what I presume the Lisbon treaty will call "common foreign policy", although I fail to see what is common about having a dispute of that nature. The point is that our so-called foreign policy is uncertain.
	If there is uncertainty about foreign policy, that will clearly lead to uncertainty about the consequent aid policy. We are talking about poverty, about people starving and about getting money to those people as soon as possible. When people do not know where their next meal is coming from, they do not have time to wait for the resolution of a common foreign policy on which the aid policy depends.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. He gave an example of a significant split of 22 to five in the European Union over Kosovo. Circumstances could arise in which development was required in an area, but a split on foreign policy might lead to that aid being stopped.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Not only is there a danger that assistance and aid is delayed, but it could stop. When people rely on aid for their next meal, we run out of time for those lives.

Bob Spink: My hon. Friend is making a passionate and compelling speech about aid, but does he agree that trade could be as important—if not more important—than aid? Does he know that statistics show that, in 2002, the EU policy on trade meant that we gave trade tariffs of 1.6 per cent. to the richest countries, with GDP per capita of more than £15,000, and tariffs of an average of 5 per cent. to poor countries, with GDP per capita of less than £5,000? Does he worry about that?

Shailesh Vara: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that powerful point, which endorses my point that it is vital to have a separate Commissioner.

The Chairman: Order. The point that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made did not strike me as going to the heart of the amendment, so I hope that we will not go too far down that path.

Shailesh Vara: No, Sir Alan. I simply commented that I believed that my hon. Friend was making a valid point, which underlines that it is vital to have a separate spokesman for aid at the negotiating table, rather than someone who has to follow other trends—trade, which my hon. Friend mentioned, or foreign and security policy in the case of the high commissioner.

Rob Marris: May I gently point out two matters? First, the common foreign policy of the European Union is decided not by qualified majority voting but by unanimity. Secondly, article 214 makes it clear that member states can have their own humanitarian foreign aid programmes, even in the absence of agreement on a European Union humanitarian aid programme. The UK could act in a case in which the European Union chose not to do so.

Shailesh Vara: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. On unanimity, I fully appreciate what is written in a treaty, but what happens on the ground is not reflected in the treaty. We have a so-called common foreign policy but there is nothing common in division, with 22 countries voting one way and five countries voting the other. On the hon. Gentleman's point about Britain's ability to give aid, we are not discussing Britain's aid, but what the European Union will do with its funds. I do not therefore understand the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's point.

James Clappison: We have had the argument previously and I do not want to go too far down that road, but if my hon. Friend examines the treaty, he will note incremental movements throughout it, including the extension of qualified majority voting beyond that which exists today, in favour of a common European foreign and security policy. Does he share my wish for the Minister to set out some concrete objectives, which would perhaps put our minds at rest at least a little in the context of the amendment?

Shailesh Vara: I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that the Minister took those points on board.
	Let me revert to the possibility that the European high commissioner would have charge of the aid budget. Several of my hon. Friends have mentioned the ever-increasing centralisation of decision making, with a few people at the top having ever-larger empires, for want of a better word, over which they would have exclusive control. We have noted that for several years the European budget has not been signed off, yet greater centralisation of funds will lead to the inevitable prospect of those funds, ever approaching the pinnacle, not being subject to as much accountability as we would like—in other words, the money will not go specifically to the people for whom it is intended It is therefore important that there should be a specific European Commissioner in charge who can be held responsible for the money and can try to follow where it goes—to which countries, to which projects and to which people.
	We are discussing this important issue in the comfort of the Palace of Westminster. Many in the Chamber have had their evening meal and others know full well that they will soon be able to have theirs. However, I am reminded of the occasion on which, as the recipient of a fellowship from the Norfolk charitable trust, an organisation run by Tom Harrison and his daughter Deborah Harrison, I visited Ethiopia to see the starving for myself. I will never forget the occasion when— [ Interruption. ] Labour Members may well jest about the poverty and the dying in Ethiopia, but I assure them that their criticisms of our compassion are highlighted by the humour that they find in my comments about the dying and the starving in Ethiopia. I will never forget the occasion on which I went to a feeding centre, where hundreds of people were squatting, waiting for a bag of grain, a pot of oil and a little bit of salt, which was to last them for the next month.
	This debate is about those people. It is about their next meal. We must recognise that this is not just another issue. We as politicians have a responsibility, in a global world, to our global brethren. It is therefore vital that where there is aid money, it is properly targeted and properly dealt with, and that there is proper accountability. By accepting the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh has moved, we will ensure that our duty towards the starving of the world will be that much better fulfilled. If we do not accept the amendment, I am afraid that we as politicians do an injustice to all our rhetoric and an injustice to all the people who look to us for their next meal.
	To conclude, when my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said that the Government had not yet said that our amendments were wrecking amendments, the Minister said that he had not had an opportunity to do so. The Minister is an honourable Minister and I have an enormous amount of respect for what he says and what he does. I therefore very much hope that his comments were made in jest, and that he will not stand at the Dispatch Box and try to rubbish the well-meaning amendments that we have tabled. I urge the House to put aside party politics and accept our amendments, which are for the greater good of mankind.

Douglas Carswell: I wish to make a few succinct points in favour of the amendment. We need to keep separate the common foreign and security policy, and international aid, for a number of reasons. Let me preface my comments by saying that international aid is vital, and for Parliament and the Government, it should be right up there with education and the health service. It is vital because there is an enormous disparity of wealth in the world that is ultimately unsustainable. The western world needs to do much more to alleviate poverty. That fact alone means that this subject deserves its own focus and deserves someone to take responsibility for it, separately from any considerations on foreign and security policy.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman argues that we need to do more to ensure the eradication of poverty. The treaty states:
	"Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty."
	Why is he supporting a group of amendments that include the deletion of that proposed policy from the treaty?

Douglas Carswell: I was speaking specifically to the amendment, which seeks to establish a separation between the common foreign and security policy and international aid. I am not debating the more general point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
	Linking international aid with the foreign and security policy would diminish the effectiveness of such aid. In any discussion on foreign relations, there are two schools of thought: one deals with realpolitik, the other with idealism. In the making of foreign policy, there is usually a healthy tension between the consideration of the two different strands. I suspect, however, that the individuals and institutions responsible for foreign and security policy will be less prone to idealism and to moral concerns about improving international development than if the two areas were kept separate. At European level, we need to keep separate those responsible for foreign and security policy and those responsible for international aid.

Rob Marris: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is speaking to amendment No. 245, which proposes to delete
	"any provision that increases the influence of the Common Foreign and Security Policy on international aid".
	Will he give the House three examples of provisions in the treaty of Lisbon that increase that influence?

Douglas Carswell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. If we were to Europeanise international aid, and to tie it around a foreign and security policy, we would diminish our efforts to alleviate poverty.

James Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I shall give the House three quick examples: putting a vice-president of the Commission in the Chair of the Council of Ministers; requiring the convergence of actions in foreign and security policy; and putting a duty—not a responsibility—on individual member states to consult other members of the Union and the Council of Ministers before undertaking any independent foreign policy of their own. Those are three examples; I could give the House a much longer list.

Douglas Carswell: I am always willing to take interventions from either side of the Chamber.

William Cash: I could give the House about 40 examples, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) knows it.

Douglas Carswell: Any other interventions? I am more than happy to take them.

Peter Bone: Is this not one of the problems involved in looking at the reality of the situation from a legalistic point of view? History has shown us that, wherever there has been a slight chance of a European Union representative taking more, they have done so. That is the reality of the situation, whatever the treaty says.

Douglas Carswell: Again, I agree, and I shall be happy to take any further interventions.
	If we look at the efforts that have been made in the field of international aid in recent decades, we can see a growing awareness in this country of our responsibilities. That is to be welcomed, and in fairness, it has happened under Governments of both parties. It is striking, however, that the great innovations in international aid have often come from the bottom up. Charities have been formed in discussions around people's kitchen tables, and spontaneous efforts have been made by the Churches or by other philanthropic organisations. These efforts have come from the bottom up, and they have put pressure on western Governments to take action and to put international development firmly on the agenda. If we were to Europeanise our development efforts and make them a tool of a foreign and security policy, we would squeeze out the potential for pluralism.
	I think that that would impoverish our efforts to alleviate global poverty. We need to keep questions of foreign and security policy quite separate from those of international aid. I do not think that our international aid policy should be subject to considerations of realpolitik. I believe that the amendment keeps the two issues separate, so we should support it.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to have the opportunity once again to respond to a debate that has been interesting for the whole afternoon and evening. We have all had the opportunity at the start of Fairtrade fortnight to reflect on some of the big issues facing our country on a group of policies that so many of our constituents rightly feel so passionately about.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), as we often do, quite fairly. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who spoke in a style that is increasingly his trademark. He displayed his ability to find his way through a treaty and its text in a way that no European bureaucrat anywhere on the continent could do with such ease. I offer that as a compliment. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who has demonstrated such personal and political commitment to this issue over a number of years that he is rightly, fairly and genuinely admired on both sides of the Committee for his careful attention.
	We also heard, belatedly, from the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Carswell). I was as surprised to hear him as I am sure he was surprised to be making the speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on his speech. We formerly served as Whips together and his old Whip's tendencies, in helping us to get us to this hour, are still very much in evidence. The hon. Gentleman made, I think at relatively short notice, a well-informed speech about the amendments before us.
	I think that we started this afternoon's debate with a contribution from the Secretary of State for International Development, who made a point relevant to the amendments. We heard about my right hon. Friend's world tour across many of the regions and countries that we have spoken about. He is, of course, a former Minister for Europe, and I am sure that he is as disappointed as I am that he is not standing here at the Dispatch Box this evening as we reach the halfway point in our Committee deliberations on the Bill.  [Interruption.] Yes, I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that we are only halfway through our Committee process. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) says that the best is yet to come, so I thank him in anticipation of what I am about to say. By his own admission, the hon. Gentleman was a bit frustrated or angry earlier today, and he led a one-man walk-out—he was the walk-out. On his own admission, he lay down in a dark room. By all accounts, however, despite our disagreements, he retains a bright sense of humour and a sharp attention to much of the detail of the treaty. We look at the same evidence, the same arguments and the same history and come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Nevertheless, he does so with great consideration and honour. We simply disagree over the conclusions and will continue to do so.
	As to the Opposition Front Benchers, let me deal first with the hon. Member for Rayleigh. As regular attenders in the Chamber will be aware, even when we disagree over amendments, the hon. Gentleman customarily argues for them in a coherent way. I will go on to explain why we disagree with amendment No. 245 in particular, but there are even greater arguments about some of the other amendments in the group.
	In a relatively short speech, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who made his debut in today's debates as the Liberal Democrats' international development spokesman, got to the point immediately, identifying the weakness in the Conservative amendments. They seek to undermine the greater co-operation for which both my party and his party share a great enthusiasm.
	Amendments Nos. 245, 247 and 272 aim to exclude provisions that could increase the influence of the common foreign and security policy on international aid. The principles of the Union's external action are set out in article 2(24) of the Lisbon treaty, which refers to
	"democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law."
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development mentioned that in the earlier debate.
	It is vital for there to be coherence throughout the EU's external action. We would not want the EC development assistance plans in countries such as Zimbabwe or Fiji not to take account of the position on human rights and democracy. The provisions in the treaty do not mean that development will be secondary to foreign policy, as I shall seek to explain. They do not represent a return to the days of aid as an instrument of foreign policy. In fact, increased coherence as set out in the treaty will ensure that development and humanitarian aid form a key part of a coherent and effective external policy.
	It is vital for the Union's external action to be coherent and consistent. That is why the provisions that I have mentioned were included in the treaty. Other provisions have the same objective. For instance, article 2(161) states that the Union must
	"take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries."
	That requirement has existed since the Maastricht treaty.
	Let me deal with some of the wider points that have been made about EU efforts on international development and aid. Owing to either a misreading of the evidence or a deliberate misunderstanding of it, we have witnessed a parody of the EU's efforts in recent years. I have not and never will argue at the Dispatch Box that everything Europe does is anywhere near perfect—there is no organisation in the world that could not continue to improve—but to argue, as some have, that the EU has, in principle and in practice, let down the world's poorest people is, in my view, a parody of the reality.
	Let us look at some specific examples. In Sudan, €100 million of humanitarian aid has put the country firmly at the top of the Commission's humanitarian agenda. In northern Uganda, 2 million internally displaced people were living in poorly managed camps without minimum basic services or adequate protection, and with recurrent cholera outbreaks. The Commission provided €19 million to improve conditions in the camps and help people to return home. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Commission's humanitarian activities focused on the most vulnerable, especially women and children. In Liberia, 14 years of civil war had a devastating effect on civilians. Half the population was undernourished in 2006, but there has been significant European investment. In Niger, more than 680,000 children were treated for acute malnutrition. As for Angola, there has been considerable investment in that war-torn country.
	I do not claim that everything that Europe has done and continues to do has resolved all the great challenges that face the world's poor. Let me say this in response to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire—

Shailesh Vara: North-West Cambridgeshire.

Jim Murphy: I apologise. Following a tour of the world's nations, I should have been able to distinguish between North-East and North-West Cambridgeshire. Nevertheless, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiment. We could debate the recent history of the party he supports, such as its dramatic—by choice—political failure of the world's poorest when it cut the aid budget, but I am willing to accept that he did not support that agenda at the time, and certainly that he does not support it this evening. There is no disagreement that the EU has to do more, and indeed, the United Kingdom bilaterally can continue to do more, but the fact is that 90 per cent. of the European development fund does go to the poorest nations. In 2006, £32 billion of aid went to help some 18 million people in more than 160 countries. It has to be acknowledged that not all the money has gone to the poorest nations, but a strong case can be made that while there is rightly a focus on the poorest nations in the world it is also right to concentrate on the poorest communities in some of the middle-income nations, and that they are also entitled to the support of the EU and the UK.
	More widely, it is right that candidate countries of the EU benefit from EU support, such as aid support and aid investment. That is why the European neighbourhood policy is important. Earlier this afternoon, I had to pop out of the debate to meet the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, a country that received £160 million in 2006 in total EC aid; it also received almost £6 million in UK bilateral aid, which is administered through the Department for International Development. It is important that we continue to invest in—to use the dreadful diplomatic-speak—Europe's "near-abroad", which are those countries to the east and south of Europe's borders. We must continue to invest in those countries, rather than only in the poorest countries in the world. We wish to see stability and continuing democratic process.

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is making a forceful and thoughtful speech, but is he really saying that there is no disproportionality in the aid devoted by the EU when, for example, seven times as much aid per head is given to Turkey than to Bangladesh? Is there any proportionality in that?

Jim Murphy: We must continue to try to find ways to get money to individuals in the poorest nations and to the poorest communities in some of the middle-income nations. I am not seeking to argue that everything Europe has done, is doing or will do is precise and perfect. That is why there must be continued reform. However, I am arguing that it is in our national and international interests that there continues to be investment in, for example, Serbia, to encourage democracy and the rule of law there, and that we encourage economic progress, open markets and human rights in, for example, Kosovo.
	Let me turn to the text of the treaty and the concern of the hon. Member for Rayleigh about the effect the potential loss of an EU Development Commissioner could have on EU efforts in international development. Although I have yet to hear it said specifically thus far in any of our days of deliberations on the treaty, I think that it is common ground that a reduction in the number of Commissioners is a good thing. Thus far, in six days of debate both in Committee and on Second Reading, we have not heard from those on the Conservative Benches of one thing that they welcome in the treaty. I know that Conservative Members' worry is that if they welcome a millimetre of it, they will be slammed by the UK Independence party and other Europhobes.  [Interruption.] Instead of chortling, I shall give the hon. Member for Rayleigh the opportunity to welcome some parts of the treaty.

Mark Francois: I say to the Minister that we are opposed to this treaty because it transfers great powers from Britain to the EU, and I remind him that his Government promised the British people a referendum on that basis. That, and not what UKIP might or might not say, is our primary concern.

Jim Murphy: Again, the hon. Gentleman welcomes nothing in this treaty, be it on international development or foreign policy. I remind the House that the Conservatives are alone, because they are the only Opposition party in Europe and the only conservative party in Europe to oppose the treaty's every sentence. He opposes every aspect of the treaty.
	The number of Commissioners will be reduced from 27, because there are not 27 full-time jobs to do in the European Commission and thus there is no justification for having 27 separate bureaucracies. In addition, as we welcome Turkey and others into the European Union in future, the number of Commissioners would continue to be a difficulty if it was not addressed. More importantly, the treaty does not make provisions on which Commissioners and portfolios will remain—there is no specific alignment as to which Commissioner portfolios would continue on a full-time basis. Nothing has been decided on the portfolios or roles carried out by individual Commissioners or by the collection of Commissioners.
	Commissioners come and go, and much is dependent on the power and personality of Commissioners, but the treaty text is what is important and unavoidable, and, for the first time, it legally enshrines humanitarian aid. That aid should be offered and provided in line with three principles—impartiality, neutrality and non-discrimination—which have been established by the Red Cross.
	Let us consider some different aspects of the treaty text. Article 21(d) on page 18 states that the Union should try to
	"foster the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries".
	Article 21(e) states that it should try to encourage the integration of all countries into the world economy
	", including through the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade".
	Paragraph 5 of article 3 on page 5 states clearly, for the first time:
	"In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty".
	The specific roles of individual Commissioners will continue to evolve. There is no ideological disagreement about that between the left, right and centre across the European Union. As we move from 27 to 18 Commissioners, there will of course be a need for some changes in portfolios. What is beyond doubt is the fact that the treaty text for the first time carries within it an absolute guarantee about the primacy and importance of the eradication of poverty.
	I think that I am being encouraged to allow the hon. Member for Rayleigh the opportunity for a couple of moments' response. However, I should say that amendment No. 246 would exclude the Lisbon treaty provision that states that the Union and the member states share competence in the areas of development co-operation and humanitarian aid, but that any Union action in those fields does not result in the member states being unable to act—it is very clear as to the extension of the shared competence. Member states are still entitled to act. Let me remind the House that European Community action in the field of development co-operation was formalised in the Maastricht treaty. Along with humanitarian aid, it has, in practice, been an important part of the Community's external action since its foundation.
	The proliferation of donors and the exponential growth of projects are real problems for many developing countries, and in particular their Governments. Those Governments have limited financial and administrative resources, yet they are asked to work with more and more donors, each of which has its own systems of reporting and auditing. Governments are asked to participate in reviews of dozens, if not hundreds, of projects, in each sector—for example, the OECD counted no fewer than 560 social infrastructure projects in Mozambique alone in 2002. The treaty seeks to rationalise that process so that instead of countries such as Mozambique struggling under the weight of well-intentioned initiatives coming from myriad nation states across the globe, there is greater coherence, at least within the European Union's 27 member states. No one could sensibly argue that Mozambique and her Government should expect to be supported in a way that puts such an enormous burden on the country and her people. That is the purpose behind the initiatives in the treaty. All of this argues for closer co-operation between donors and a shared competence in development co-operation, as the Liberal Democrats have also said this evening.
	I want to give the hon. Member for Rayleigh the opportunity to respond, so I turn finally to the question asked by the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara). The dry, legalistic answer to his entirely fair question is that for the UK to remove the specific articles of the treaty as required by the amendment would put us in a position whereby we could not fully ratify the treaty. That is the dry, legalistic and factual position, and I hope he is reassured on that point. More widely, there is determination to ensure that the European Union is more effective in the future—to harness the political determination of all 27 Governments to deliver the things we all believe in.

Mark Francois: I am grateful to the Minister for his generous remarks about the style in which I introduced the amendments. It is fair to say that this debate is somewhat less heated in nature than our debate about common foreign and security policy and the debate on defence we never really had time for. I have some specific comments about the Minister's remarks, but first I want to refer to some of the other contributors.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesman spoke briefly, presumably because he wanted to give others an opportunity to contribute. He made a plea to us about greater co-ordination on policy—I think I quote him correctly. He gave as an example greater co-ordination on defence, which he said the Liberal Democrats would welcome.

Michael Moore: If necessary.

Mark Francois: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman made that caveat at the time.
	Last Wednesday, the House would have had the opportunity to debate in detail whether we wanted greater co-ordination on defence if we had been able to deal with any of the defence amendments, but the invidious nature of the Government's business motion meant that we never even reached that point. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that we have argued—as we did strongly at business questions last Thursday—for an extra day of debate on the Lisbon treaty so that we could discuss the defence implications in detail. I hope the Liberal Democrats support that intention. Shall I give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman so that he can say yes?

Michael Moore: indicated dissent.

Mark Francois: I am rather disappointed by that response, especially as the hon. Gentleman raised the matter. It is a shame that the Liberal Democrats do not want defence debated.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the need for greater co-ordination, but when we debated the motion earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Thomas) spilled the beans. During the peroration by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Gentleman leapt up rather excitedly to intervene on points of origin, if I am quoting him correctly. We were debating how policy on points of origin might be changed—

Gareth Thomas: Rules of origin.

Mark Francois: I am grateful to the Minister. During debate about rules of origin, the hon. Gentleman leapt to his feet saying, "You don't need a treaty to change the arrangements on rules of origin." That was the spirit of what he said. In a sense, that is our entire argument today: we do not need a new treaty to improve co-operation in the delivery of EU aid.  [ Interruption. ] The Minister laughs to hide his embarrassment, but he blew the gaffe on the Government's position during the peroration by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State—I know he did because I saw his boss wince the instant he said those words.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Francois: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman—he does not need to anticipate me.
	The Minister blew the Government's case, and it is too late for him to take back his words. I now turn to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). Does he want to intervene first, or will he hear what I have to say? Perhaps he will let me make some progress and refer to his comments, and then he can intervene.
	Can we clear up the point about numbering, because there was confusion about which bits of text we were using? I understand that we have the treaty of Lisbon, which is numbered, and the consolidated text, which has been provided by The Stationery Office and, obviously, is also numbered. Also available in the Vote Office is the European Union publications office's version of the consolidated treaties. The page numbering is slightly different in the EU publications office's version and the TSO version, which was why there was confusion between my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about which page we were on. We have two consolidated versions, but the document from the EU publications office predates the other. I can say to the Minister that yet again, we and the EU are not on entirely the same page— [ Interruption. ] I am trying to clear up the situation, because several hon. Members were confused by the difference in the numbering.
	Let me turn directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West when he quoted from article 21 in the consolidated text. I shall quote the paragraph to which he referred:
	"The Union shall ensure consistency between the different areas of its external action and between these and its other policies. The Council and the Commission, assisted by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, shall ensure that consistency and shall cooperate to that effect."
	He said that the key word was "ensure", but I would argue that the key word is "shall", because it implies an element of compulsion and is used three times in the paragraph. In a sense, he picked the wrong paragraph to support his argument. I hope that he appreciates the fact that I bothered to read in detail the passage that he put before the Committee.

Rob Marris: Let me make three points. If the version of the consolidated treaties that the hon. Gentleman is brandishing is the same as the one I have in my hand, it is dated 20 November 2006, so it is completely out of date. Secondly, I stressed the word "consistency" in the quote that he cited, not the word "ensure". Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman rightly said that I am occasionally known for being legalistic. May I suggest that he does some research on the arcane way in which the European Union uses the word "shall"? I have done such research, and on many occasions in European Union treaties, shall means not "must", but "has the power to". Bizarre as that is, it is the legalistic interpretation of the word, and the hon. Gentleman, as the shadow Minister for Europe, really ought to know that.

Mark Francois: As the shadow Minister for Europe, I know that there was a great deal of argument in the context of national Parliaments about whether the relevant word should be "shall" or "may"; we will come on to that subject tomorrow, so I will not dwell on it now. No doubt we shall debate that point in detail tomorrow—the Minister is smiling already. In the paragraph of article 21 that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West cited, the word "shall" appears three times, and I think that it appears in a compulsive context.

James Clappison: Has my hon. Friend conducted detailed research on the history of judgments of the European Court of Justice, where the meaning of the word "shall" is determined according to the degree of integration that it implies?

Mark Francois: As usual, my hon. Friend, with his experience of serving on the European Scrutiny Committee, makes a good point. We all know that the history of the European Court of Justice shows that it is an activist court. In its judgments, it has tended to push the boundaries of EU competence and to interpret the word "shall" as my hon. Friend describes, rather than taking the advice of that well-known lawyer in the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

Jim Murphy: I know that many outside the House will pay great attention to the detail of which text we are reading from, so it is important, in having this great debate about international development and the poorest in the world, that we get it right. The text in my hand is the one with which we have been dealing throughout these six days of debate; the other text is the consolidated text of the EU treaties from 2006.

Mark Francois: I know.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman says that he knows, but his copy has not yet been opened. That might not translate for  Hansard, so I should explain that his copy is still covered in polythene. The text that he has not yet opened was published in 2006, before the Lisbon treaty was even agreed to. The text in my hand is the one that we have been working from this evening, and every day of our deliberations.

Mark Francois: The sealed copy is not mine; I picked it up off the Table in the Chamber about half an hour ago. This one is my copy—The Stationery Office copy, which is the current copy. Could we get back to the matter under debate?
	Perhaps we could debate this substantive point. The Minister did not provide any assurance with regard to the question that I specifically asked him when I introduced the amendment. I asked him whether he could provide the House with any guarantee that there would be a Commissioner for International Development if the Lisbon treaty were ratified. He skated through the question by saying quickly, "There will, of course, be some changes in portfolios," rather hoping that nobody would notice. The Conservatives noticed, however, and my hon. Friends on the Back Benches and I pressed him repeatedly on whether he could give us a commitment that the Commissioner would be retained. I think that the House will recognise that he did not give us such a commitment.
	I said that for that reason, I might be minded to press the amendment to a vote. However, we have a dilemma. Because of the structure of the Government's business motion, if we press the amendment, the timing of the Division will mean that we lose any ability to get to the next group of amendments. I am keen to make some points, however briefly, about those amendments, so although I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply—I tell him that to avoid confusion—I have decided, on balance, to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment so that we can debate for at least four minutes the amendments in the second group. That way, we will at least manage to touch on aid operations—which, because of how the Government have structured the business motion, we could not do if we voted on amendment No. 245. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mark Francois: I beg to move amendment No. 248, in clause 2, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 167, inserted Article 188I TEC (TFEU) relating to the procedure for adopting decisions on urgent financial assistance in respect of a situation in a third country; and
	(ii) '.

Michael Lord: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 249, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 168, inserted Article 188J TEC (TFEU), paragraph 3 relating to the legislative procedure for the framework for humanitarian aid operations; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 250, in page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert—
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 168, inserted Article 188J TEC (TFEU), paragraph 5 relating to a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps; and
	(ii) '.

Mark Francois: I shall do my best to cover the key points in the five minutes that I have. The amendment would strike out of the treaty moves towards majority voting on the provision of urgent financial assistance. By doing so, it would remove a damaging ambiguity from the treaty, as well as keeping the Government to their policy of only a few years ago, when the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) sought to delete the same provision from the original EU constitution. The Government's view as expressed by him, to quote their argument for the amendment, was as follows:
	"The intention appears to be to move to QMV for macro-financial assistance, but this article confuses the issue as it is not clear whether it refers to the macro-financial assistance or not. Macro-financial assistance has been agreed urgently when required."
	However, it appears that the Government now enthusiastically support majority voting on that matter, although not much else relating directly to it has changed in essence. The relevant treaty provision states:
	"When the situation in a third country requires urgent financial assistance from the Union, the Council shall adopt the necessary decisions on a proposal from the Commission."
	As that proposal remains somewhat ambiguous, I should have liked time to press the Minister for an explanation of the circumstances in which he believes the power will pertain.
	I shall mention our two other amendments briefly. Amendment No. 249 would strike out moves towards majority voting on humanitarian aid. It would strike out a controversial measure that opens up the possibility of the EU Foreign Minister pursuing EU foreign policy under another guise. For instance, there could be a situation in which aid to a foreign Government was unacceptable to the UK Government and would bring with it foreign policy commitments with which we were uncomfortable.
	Let us take one potential example: under the treaty, it would be possible for a qualified majority of EU states to think it right to provide humanitarian aid to the Hamas Administration in Gaza. The United Kingdom might oppose that aid, yet could still be outvoted under QMV. Giving up a veto in that area could force us into being party to a course of action that we find morally repugnant, and bind us to handing over British taxpayers' money for a cause whose values we firmly oppose. It would be extremely foolish of Ministers to claim that such a situation would never arise. The treaty provision could have wide-ranging implications for our foreign policy, and there should be no place for it.
	Amendment No. 250 would strike out the provision in the Lisbon treaty that allows the European Union to set up a European voluntary humanitarian aid corps. It is curious that the provision is still in the treaty, given that when the right hon. Member for Neath was negotiating at the constitutional Convention he said:
	"The idea of establishing a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps should have no place within the EU's humanitarian action".
	That was the Government's argument. Incredibly, this is another example in which, despite their previous opposition, the Government are now telling us that they support an idea. The hon.—and gallant—Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) brought his experience of Afghanistan to bear on the argument when he suggested that what development companies primarily need is experienced technical professionals to help them. I tend to agree with his argument.
	Amendment No. 248 seeks to remove a harmful aspect of the treaty by removing provision for majority voting on urgent financial assistance. The right hon. Member for Neath explained that that measure was both unnecessary and ambiguous. If we had time, I would have asked the Minister for Europe to give more detail about possible circumstances. Amendment No. 249 seeks to remove provisions for majority voting on humanitarian aid in respect of areas where there could be conflict with our own independent foreign policy. I have given an example relating to Gaza. Amendment No. 250 would delete references to—
	 It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings in the Committee , The Chairman  left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Orders [28 January and this day].
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Watts.]
	 Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Food

Ordered,
	That the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula (England) Regulations 2007, dated 13th December 2007, be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee.— [Mr. Watts.]

BELARUS (CHILDREN'S VISAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Watts.]

Willie Rennie: Mr. Deputy Speaker— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members are leaving the House, will they do so quickly and quietly, so that we can get on with the Adjournment debate?

Willie Rennie: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly alarmed to see that the Minister for Europe is replying to the debate. He has had a lot to do over the past few weeks, and I know that he has a very important race on Wednesday. I would not like him to do too much in advance of that race, considering that he beat me only by a smidgen two years ago. If you have any power to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you should advise him to go to his bed on Wednesday.
	On the issue of visas for Belarusian children, I would first like to tell the House a wee story about a boy called Vova who came to the United Kingdom a few years ago when he was 17 years old. Many of his friends had come here years before then, but doctors had not wanted him to travel because of the state of his health. He was not expected to make a full recovery, and he was painfully thin. He had a great holiday in the United Kingdom, and the following year he made a full recovery. He is now the father of a healthy little girl.
	Vova is one of many victims of the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear explosion in April 1986. There are thousands of people like him across Belarus—people suffering from thyroid cancer, bone cancer, leukaemia and many other horrific conditions. In Belarus, in the summer, the dust causes radiation levels to rise, so a few weeks of fresh air and clean food in the United Kingdom are a great release for those children. The Belarusian doctors believe that it boosts the children's immune system for at least two years after the visit, and that it is vital for teenagers, who are often in their second or third bout of illness. Indeed, the death rate among teenagers is extremely high.
	There are 12 or so charities that organise holidays for Belarusian children and bring about 5,000 children every year to the UK for recuperative holidays. The children are chosen by the Minsk-based Children in Trouble charity, which is organised by the parents of children with cancer. The children stay with volunteers in the UK, and they have enjoyed fantastic holidays here for at least two decades. The charities have brought more than 55,000 children to this country since the visits began. They have an excellent, first-class reputation, and are run by brilliant people. The former British ambassador to Belarus, Brian Bennett, is a leading player, as is my constituent, Carol Dean, from North Queensferry. Victor Mizzi, Linda Walker and Olwyn Keogh were recently recognised by the Queen for their work for Belarusian children and received the MBE.
	All that excellent work, however, is under threat because of the manner of the introduction of biometric visas, which has been rushed, with little regard for the needs of the children, families and charities. I am appalled by the way in which they have been treated, and if urgent measures are not taken, their good work could be under threat. There is evidence that some charities are packing up, or thinking about doing so. If that is the case, it will be the children who lose out at the end of the day. The Minister will know that on 1 January this year biometric visas were introduced across the board. Finger scans and a digital photograph are required. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office website states:
	"The recording of this biometric data is a quick process, taking on average no more than two minutes. It will not lead to delays in issuing visas."
	It all sounds very simple, but that is far from the case. There are three main problems with the introduction of biometric visas. Since September last year, the children have been required to take a trip up to Minsk to receive their visa. For some of them, it is a 10-hour round trip of hundreds of miles on a bus. Those children, as I have explained, are often in poor health, and a 10-hour round trip is not something I would advise them to undertake.
	There is a major expense, too, for the charities involved, which have to hire coaches to transport the children. The Italians and Germans organise more holidays than the UK for the children, and I should like to know from the Minister whether those countries have been consulted, and whether a joint effort has been undertaken with them to make sure that we can learn lessons from their measures, just as they can from ours. There seems to be a one-size-fits-all approach to the whole world, but there must be more than one way to demonstrate under the rules that
	"suitable arrangements have been made".
	I understand that mobile visa units may be in place by summer. Can the Minister tell us more about that, and whether they will be guaranteed to be in place, on time, without any delays? Volume, or the number of children, is an issue, too. As I have explained, 4,000 to 5,000 children travel here every year, but because they all travel in summer, they are more than likely to apply for visas at the same time, so there will be a rush for visas from spring until the summer, when they go on holiday. There have been reports of significant waits at the embassy in Minsk, so the two-minute wait time that was given is unrealistic, as it will be much longer. The charities fear that there will be a sudden rush and the system will not be able to cope. Can the Minister give us a guarantee that there will be no massive queues and no massive delays?
	The third issue concerns advance notice. The British embassy in Minsk told the charities:
	"UK legislation requires that, in issuing a visa to a child under 18, our Entry Clearance Officers must be satisfied that a sponsoring organisation . . . can demonstrate that suitable arrangements have been made for travel to, and reception and care in, the United Kingdom."
	Officials have interpreted that as meaning:
	"To ensure full compliance with these rules we will now require all visa application forms to be filled out in full, including details of the host family and the address where the child will stay".
	To me, it is quite a leap from
	"can demonstrate that suitable arrangements have been made"
	to requiring full details of exactly where the child will stay in the United Kingdom and the host family's name. It seems to be quite a tight interpretation of the rules that have been set down.
	That will cause significant difficulties for the families, the charities and the children involved. I have already explained that these are sick children from a country that is quite far away, and that volunteer families host the children in the United Kingdom. That involves constant changes. Sometimes the children are sick and drop out; sometimes the families are no longer able to take the children. We need a system that is much more flexible and that allows last-minute notification of the children's destination.
	There is also a need to ensure proper bonding between the children and the host families, so the matching process is vital. Sometimes it is long and complex. When they apply for visas, the children might not know which families they will stay with in the United Kingdom. Flexibility is crucial. Instead of the host family name on the visa, perhaps the name of the organiser of the trip could be entered on the visa. Ultimately, they are responsible for the children when they are in the United Kingdom, and that would meet the requirement to demonstrate that all arrangements have been made, as specified in the rules. The interpretation of the rules has been excessive. All the families have been Criminal Records Bureau-checked, and the charities also vet the host families, so the triple lock seems unnecessary.
	I have explained the three issues—the distance travelled, the numbers involved and the advance notice required. The treatment of the charities has been appalling. Instead of respect and consideration for them, there is a strong whiff of suspicion about their motives. Anybody who questions the rules is viewed with suspicion, as though their only interest was in harming the children. The charities have gained a tremendous reputation over many years and have brought over 55,000 children to the United Kingdom.
	After several requests for a meeting last year to discuss the changes, a hurried meeting with UKvisas was finally organised in December. Not surprisingly, it was a hostile meeting, but at the end a formal response was promised, as well as a consultation document to be published in January. Despite the Minister promising in a letter to one of the charities that a formal response would be forthcoming, three months have passed and the charities have received no formal notification or outcome from that meeting. There seems to be a strangely aggressive "we know best" approach to the whole affair, and anyone who questions it is viewed with suspicion. The charities have a tremendous track record and should not be treated in such a manner.
	Such treatment is mild compared to the way in which the Chernobyl Children's Lifeline has been treated. Three years ago that charity took firm action to remove from the charity one of its CRB-checked hosts, about whom it had concerns. No action was taken by the authorities but three years later, without notice, visas for children who were about to travel to the United Kingdom were revoked, one and a half days before they were due to travel. The children's flights were booked, the host families were ready for the children, the kids' bags were packed and everybody was ready to go, but the holiday had to be cancelled as a consequence of the revoked visas. That cost the charity a considerable amount of time and money. After that, the visas were suspended for a period of weeks. UKvisas told the charity that Dorset police were carrying out an investigation into the charity following the actions of the individual whom I mentioned three years prior to the visas being revoked. However, Dorset police told it that that was not the case and that there was no such investigation. There were no interviews with the charity and there was no investigation.
	The offences carried out by the individual did not happen on the charity's watch; the charity was not responsible for them, yet it suffered the consequences of his actions. It was treated in a high-handed manner three years after the event took place. Given the work that the charity has done over many years with thousands of children, treating it in that manner one and a half days before the children were due to go on holiday was completely disrespectful.
	The final aspect of what I view as the disrespect towards the charities is the anonymous calls that have taken place recently. Hosts in the United Kingdom, and the families in Belarus and their schools, have been receiving anonymous calls seeking details of the children travelling to the United Kingdom. If they refuse to supply those details, there is a threat that the visit will be cancelled and the visas revoked. They receive no advance written notification of what we now understand are official phone calls and, not surprisingly, they consider them threatening and alarming. Those people have the right not to be treated in that way; they should be given more consideration.
	Chernobyl Children's Lifeline and all the other charities deserve an apology for how they have been treated. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) was unable to attend tonight's debate, but he wanted me to know the importance that he attaches to the work of the Belarusian charities for the Chernobyl children. He sent me a short e-mail, which states:
	"There is little doubt in my mind that the introduction of biometric visas under the proposed scheme will give the charity a continuing and considerable cost overhead. This would have the effect of curtailing the work of the charity with fewer children from Belarus enjoying the benefits of recuperative holidays in the UK."
	The hon. Gentleman has my full support, and I have his.
	I have four recommendations for the way forward. First, until a proper working system is in place, biometric visas for children from Belarus should be suspended. We need to work with the charities and our EU partners to develop a system that can be piloted in a particular region so that we know that it works and can cope with the volume and with having mobile units throughout the country. We need to suspend the current system so that none of the holidays this summer is threatened.
	The second issue is about the named representative, and whether that could be the host family in the United Kingdom, and their address, or the organiser from the charity. In my firm view, the charities have proven themselves to be appropriate and responsible and should have their names on the visas. They have the child protection systems to cope with that.
	Thirdly, we should consider how the United States deals with such visas; it requires visas only for over-14-year-olds from Belarus. We should consider adopting such a system. Finally, we should issue an apology to the Chernobyl children's charities for how they have been treated and we should consider some form of compensation for the cancelled Chernobyl Children's Lifeline holidays and the extra costs involved for travelling to Minsk for the visas.
	I should like to read a short statement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. It says:
	"The UK continues to have serious concerns about the lack of respect for human rights in Belarus. Since the flawed presidential elections, the Belarusian regime has continued to crack down on the opposition and increasingly to stifle any dissent. We deplore this situation and the unjustified actions taken to prevent demonstrators, human rights campaigners, opposition leaders and independent trade unionists from exercising their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression."
	The Chernobyl children's charities do a fantastic job, reaching out to thousands of families in Belarus, offering them the hand of friendship, and giving them relief from their regime and their debilitating environment, as well as giving them a taste of our democracy. If we believe that those are good actions, we should be offering them encouragement and support, not hindrance.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) on securing it. It is the culmination of his continued effort to highlight the issue. I am sure that until he achieves the outcome that he wishes for, he will rightly continue to campaign.
	I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's comments about our impending personal confrontation over the next couple of days. He suggested that in the most recent Westminster mile, I beat him by a smidgen. I think that only in Fife could half a minute be described as a smidgen, but I will leave that for the moment; perhaps his recollection is more accurate than mine.
	Let me start where the hon. Gentleman concluded by making a general point about human rights in Belarus. He is right in his observation about the lack of democracy and human rights and the way in which basic freedoms are curtailed, the rights of the state are taken for granted, and the rights of individuals are crushed at almost every opportunity. I am glad that he made those points, which give me an opportunity to put on the record for the House that we call on the Government of Belarus to release political prisoners—in particular, Mr. Kazulin, who should be released from prison today, unconditionally, because that is the right thing to do, especially after his bereavement following the death of his wife in the past few days. That is an issue of basic human rights. Not only the United Kingdom Government, but the international community more generally, demand his urgent and unconditional release, and I make that call again on behalf of the UK Government.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a substantial number of specific points, and I will do my best in the time available to respond to as many as possible. After the debate, I will be happy to take a personal interest in all the issues that he raised, particularly the responses to the charities and biometric testing. I will take personal responsibility for undertaking further inquiries and then meet him, and any other Members from both sides of the House who continue to take an interest in the issue.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, the charities involved have worked hard over the past 21 years to support the children and their families and, despite his concerns, we continue to support strongly their efforts. There is a real benefit in allowing the children who have been affected by Chernobyl to visit the UK for a period of respite care. Indeed, the House will wish to know that in 2007 the British embassy in Minsk issued about 3,400 visas to children sponsored by Chernobyl charities.
	Let me respond to the hon. Gentleman's observations about biometrics. He asked about the purpose of and rationale for biometric testing. He is of course aware that it is undertaken to protect the integrity of the visa system and to protect our customers regardless of which nation they come from. It is not an enjoyable job to design an eliminative system to protect our borders from those who want to enter the UK illegally, and some genuine visitors will be affected. These children undoubtedly fall into the latter category of people who wish to come to the United Kingdom for good reasons of personal respite and support for their families—not just to see our democracy and how another society works but because of a range of objective reasons. Not only does such a visit lift their spirits, but it provides a therapeutic opportunity for the children and their families.
	In respect of biometrics, the British Embassy and UKvisas have worked hard to develop a unique pilot project for these children that will be in place this summer during the period of applications and visits. Embassy staff will make a series of visits to Mogilev, which is the region where most of the children live, with a mobile biometric kit to take the children's details. That will save them the expense—important to most, if not all of those families—and trouble of travelling to Minsk. Given the way in which the hon. Gentleman passionately described the circumstances in which many of these families live and the difficulties they experience in making that remarkable journey to Minsk, that process should lighten their load and improve their circumstances in an important way.
	We will need the charities' active co-operation to ensure the success of what is a unique experiment in unique circumstances. We have dedicated significant additional resources for the pilot, and we will continue to provide free visas to all Chernobyl charity children. I want to make it clear that the introduction of biometric testing for UK visa applications does not represent any change in policy on visas for Chernobyl children or towards the charities arranging visits.
	The hon. Gentleman made a number of further points, particularly about the names on the visa, and the person or organisation who would have named responsibility for children when they visit the UK. My advice at the moment is that, given the duty of care imperatives relating to such vulnerable children, UKvisas requires confirmation of the host details for each visit, and needs to ensure that those hosts have been suitably cleared with the Criminal Records Bureau. However, if the hon. Gentleman has additional evidence that he wishes to bring to this conversation, I would be happy to listen to his observations. I would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter.
	The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about engagement with charities concerning the visa changes. I understand that there has been regular contact with the charities about the changes, and it is crucial to the UK Government and to the children and families involved that the charities have an effective way to input their views and their experience of the process over two decades. It is important that we listen to those experiences.
	The hon. Gentleman alluded to the meeting on 3 December involving the major charities and other stakeholders, including the charity commissioners and a representative of the Home Office's children's champion. The hon. Gentleman said that, so far, there had been no response as a result of that meeting. As a consequence of the points that he has made, I will personally inquire tomorrow as to when the charities will receive the response to which they are entirely entitled. A response should be given timeously and it should be one of substance, so that the charities can enter into a continued conversation about the best way forward for the arrangements.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that approximately 60 charities offer such holidays and breaks in the United Kingdom. Those charities have expertise and they know the value of the programme, because they estimate that even one month away can boost a child's immune system for up to two years.

Willie Rennie: I thank the Minister for agreeing to provide a response from the meeting in December. I want him to understand fully why it is absolutely essential that the name on the visa is the name of the organisation and of the individual who is organising the trip rather than that of the host family. The utmost flexibility is required because the fact that the children are often sick and the families are volunteers mean that the situation changes constantly. To ensure that the matching process works adequately, the decision about where the children stay should be delayed as long as possible. The charities have the appropriate systems and regulations in place, they are checked, they arrange for families to have CRB checks and they vet them, and so I urge the Minister to consider it appropriate for them to have some sort of delegated responsibility.

Jim Murphy: As part of my reflection on this evening's debate, I shall look into the specific, fair points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
	I know that time is against us, and so may I tell the hon. Gentleman that the whole House thanks him for his work and for initiating the debate in the manner in which he has done? I know that he will have the gratitude of the charities, which is more important than the thanks of the House. More important still, he will have the gratitude of many of the children who have benefited so much over recent decades from the opportunity to come to the United Kingdom.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.